Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 52

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 45 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

James Finch (cricketer)

I'm not at home in cricket, so I have no idea if someone who has only played for the Second XI of a cricket club is considered notable or should be AfD'ed. He has made no first team appearances according to the databases. Fram (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed he is not notable. Feel free to put him up at AFD, but speedy deletion is probably more suitable for such a clear cut case. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I've put on a ProD template, if it gets removed I'll AfD it. Fram (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Article has been deleted for failing notability criteria. Nev1 (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Victoria (Australia) cricketers

At the risk of being censured for the crime of "canvassing" I point out that I have nominated the above category for renaming. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 24#Category:Victoria (Australia) cricketers. My views on the matter (and for that matter, the CfD process) are shown quite clearly there, nevertheless, your views for and against the rename would be useful. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've said my twopennyworth about this and I encourage others to do so too. Matt is absolutely right to request a rename as the reasons for including (Australia) in this category's name are an example of the blockheaded stupidity that sometimes occurs on this site. Victoria in this context isn't a state but a team and its name within that context is unique, so why has it become necessary to disambiguate it vis-à-vis other, non-existent teams called Victoria? BlackJack | talk page 01:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I've chipped my oar in with what I think is the strongest argument for the rename. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a very significant point at stake here and I think it is in the long-term interest of WP:CRIC to support Mattinbgn. There is a sort of clique operating on the CfD pages who do not subscribe to WP:UCS in terms of category naming and who, by joining all controversial CfD topics, are always likely to secure consensus for their literal interpretation of policies and guidelines. We as subject experts need to stand up to these people to ensure that cricket categories are named according to our own consensus.

The problem is their "global" interpretation of the name Victoria. In terms of first-class cricket, it is a unique name and refers to a team in Australia as we all know. The line being taken by the CfD regulars is that "Victoria cricketers" will lead the "average reader" (sic) to assume that the category includes players from the reign of Queen Victoria (yes, really, even though the word is Victoria and not Victorian). The discussion has now been joined by the architect of the Victoria (Australia) movement himself who has grandly proclaimed that his view is what is best for "the vast majority of readers".

I should add that there already mutterings among these people about proposing a change of name for, say, category:Sussex cricketers to category:Sussex County Cricket Club players. Before long, we will have anything to do with Kent being named Kent (England) as obviously the "average reader" will think they play top-class cricket at Kent State University.

That is the mindset that prevails on CfD and if we want to protect WP:CRIC categories from their doctrine, then we must support Mattinbgn's nomination to establish a precedent. Thanks. BlackJack | talk page 07:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, common sense has been victorious on this occasion and the category is back to what it should be. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, nothing like a good bunfight to get things sorted. ---BlackJack | talk page 06:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakpassion notable??

I'm skeptical. A AFD and DRV let the guys recreate it if they had proper sources etc. I don't think it's too good. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of improvement but I think the scope of the site qualifies it. If it was only a forum, I'd say no but it looks as if it has news, interviews and features as well. It certainly needs more sources. ---BlackJack | talk page 06:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New list of female cricketers

I made a list this morning of female cricketers, Cricket Archive codes wf1 - wf215, here. While I have no time to do so now, I will fix any undisambiguated names this evening. I am going to make a list of female cricketers from match codes witt1 - witt20 later, though I doubt there are many on the latter list that aren't already on the former.

Making a list of women's List A cricketers seems a bit of a hefty task as there are 1698 matches to root through. These include wo1 - wo653, which I'm sure I can knock off given a few hours this weekend. I still have it on my list to create waus1 - waus262 - and I assume it would be okay to knock off the non-international matches in the list from wtt1 - wtt66.

Are there any more groups of notable female cricket match lists that I have forgotten? Thank you in advance. Bobo. 04:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

wnz matches (go up to just under 300 I think) are probably worth a look at - it's the top level of domestic women's cricket in New Zealand. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
And wtt codes also. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
wtt codes I am already looking at, as they go up to just 66, they should be easy to knock off in an evening. Thank you for mentioning wnz codes, I had overlooked these. For my own reference, these go from wnz1 to wnz281, Oddly, if you look at those matches between wnz282 and wnz285, these already link to a scorecard URL, but they still pull up an error message.
Thank you for informing me, Andrew. I will get to work on those this evening. Bobo. 10:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Namibian ODI cricketers

List of Namibian ODI cricketers has been nominated for a featured list removal. Lists are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the lst to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added my tuppence, anyone slightly more au fait with the FLRC process wish to help out? Bobo. 01:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a process for nominating removal of silly signatures? Especially if they are "fetured" (sic). --BlackJack | talk page 06:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

List of African XI ODI cricketers

This following article will be nominated for Fetured list removal in 4 days if the following article does not complete the featured list criteria. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Asian XI ODI cricketers

This following article will be nominated for Fetured list removal in 4 days if the following article does not complete the featured list criteria. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers

This following article will be nominated for Fetured list removal in 4 days if the following article does not complete the featured list criteria. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Indian ODI cricketers

This following article will be nominated for Fetured list removal in 4 days if the following article does not complete the featured list criteria. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Scottish ODI cricketers

This following article will be nominated for Fetured list removal in 4 days if the following article does not complete the featured list criteria. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Australian ODI cricketers

This following article will be nominated for Fetured list removal in 4 days if the following article does not complete the featured list criteria. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Northern Irish cricketers

I have concerns about Category:Northern Irish cricketers. The name suggests that any cricketer born in Northern Ireland can be placed in it. However User:Andrew nixon has placed a very narrow restriction on it. I suggest an additional category called Category:Northern Ireland international cricketers should be created. However Andrew is being uncooperative. Any ideas ? Djln--Djln (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think uncooperative is a little unfair, I simply pointed out that it fits in line with all other similar categories and that if you wanted all to change, you should bring it up here. I have refined the category description slightly, but still feel that it should not be for any player born in Northern Ireland. A player such as John Elder may be from Northern Ireland, but as he never played for them, but did play for Ireland, is classed as an Irish cricketer. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Additional: If the proposal above was carried out on all categories, we'd have Kevin Pietersen put in Category:South African Test cricketers, a rather silly situation. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You are missing the point. If a cricket player is born in NI it is not unreasonable for readers, especially those unfamiliar with cricket, to expect to find him in Category:Northern Irish cricketers. It’s irrelevant who he played for. I am simply suggesting that the current title is misleading and that you create a new category to specifically cover the NI team. Why are you dragging Pietersen into it ? If it was Category:South African cricketers you might have a point but the extra word Test adds extra clarity unlike the category we are discussing. Djln --Djln (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
IMO since the Irish Cricket Union makes no disticntion between Northern Irish cricketers and Republic of Ireland cricketers (ie: they represent Ireland, not Northern or Republic), neither should we. Nev1 (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a good point - should we in this case simply rename the category to "Northern Irish cricketers at the 1998 Commonwealth Games"? I appreciate that there is some confusion over the category name, which was why I added a description in the first place! Andrew nixon (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
An aside, where does Martin McCague fit in; (assuming anyone wants to claim him :-)) An England Test cricketer, raised in Australia and born in NI. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The question arises with other nationalities where a player born in one country has played internationally for another. Pat Pocock is included in category:Welsh cricketers because he was born in Bangor, but he is always associated with Surrey and he played for England so, as you would expect, he is also in both category:English cricketers and category:English Test cricketers.
Somewhere in the WP guidelines about categories it says without being too specific that categories are not hierarchical but are relational, which means that technically you can use any category you like as long as it is relevant. Categories do not have any dependence upon each other although a measure of common sense is necessary when it comes to parent categories like category:Cricket which has about 30 child categories begging to be used. Hence, in the case of someone like McCague, there's no technical reason why he should not appear in all of the Australian, English, Irish and Northern Irish categories. But just because something is technically correct doesn't mean it is useful to the reader.
I think using more than one nationality category is acceptable. McCague presents a useful case study. He played for Western Australia and Kent so he is in the categories for those teams. In Australia, he was effectively an overseas player who never played for Australia, so he should not be included in category:Australian cricketers. Equally, he never played for Ireland so he should not be in category:Irish cricketers. He did play for England and he was born in Northern Ireland so he should be in both category:English cricketers and category:Northern Irish cricketers. If, however, he had never played international cricket, then despite his Australian and English associations, I would place him in category:Northern Irish cricketers only.
Using Pocock as a precedent, any Northern Irish player who has represented Ireland should be in both category:Irish cricketers and category:Northern Irish cricketers, but I think a Northern Irish player who has not played internationally should not be in category:Irish cricketers. If Pocock had never played for England, he would only be in category:Welsh cricketers. As for Pietersen, I would include him in category:South African cricketers as well as category:English cricketers.
I think we need to agree some ground rules and put something onto the WP:CRIC page. BlackJack | talk page 07:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Robert Poore is another interesting case. Born in Ireland, he was a British army officer who, while serving in South Africa, appeared for that country's Test team. JH (talk page) 08:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd propose the following guidelines:

  • If a player played for a national side they go in the category for that country (or countries if more than one).
  • If they played major cricket in the country of their birth, they also go in the category for that country, should it be different than above.
  • If they did not play major cricket in the country of their birth and did not represent a national side, they go in the category relating to where they played the majority of their major cricket.

England, Ireland and the West Indies, as they represent more than one political entity, need to have exceptions. I think we've already covered something similar, but my suggestion would be this:

  • Any player to have played for England and who was born in Wales, goes in English cricketers and Welsh cricketers. A player born in Wales, but who has not played for England should not go in English cricketers.
  • Any player to have played for Ireland who was born in Northern Ireland should go in Irish cricketers only, unless they have also played for Northern Ireland.
  • A player born in Northern Ireland but who has played for a non-Irish national side should not go in Northern Irish cricketers.
  • A player born in Northern Ireland who has not played for any national side can go in Northern Irish cricketers.
  • A player from the West Indies only goes in West Indian cricketers if they have played major cricket for a West Indian team.

In the above, national side means ANY national side at any level.

Thoughts? Andrew nixon (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I think that your earlier suggestion for starting for a Cat:Northern Irish cricketers at the 1998 Commonwealth Games makes sense. However your above suggestions do not. They over complicate things and will just cause confusion. I think Blackjack makes more sense. The Cat:Northern Irish cricketers should include any cricketer born in NI regardless of who they played for. This would include the likes of McGague. The reasons behind which article belongs in what category should be understood clearly from the category title and should not require long winded explanations. Djln --Djln (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC).
The alternative is to split the international categories from the nationality categories to remove any possibility of confusion. So we'd have Category: Northern Ireland international cricketers for players to have played for Northern Ireland and Category: Northern Irish cricketers for cricketers from Northern Ireland. And the same for every other country too, so we'd have Category: England international cricketers and Category: English cricketers, Category: Australia international cricketers and Category: Australian cricketers, etc... Andrew nixon (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read all of this with interest and I think the project's approach has gone astray somewhat. It would be better to have category:Cricketers from Northern Ireland and include in this any player, including Martin McCague, who was born in Northern Ireland. For international teams of all varieties you should have, for example, category:England cricketers in which McCague would again feature. Thus, Kevin Pietersen would be in category:Cricketers from South Africa and category:England cricketers. GeorgeWilliams (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer if "international" was added to the categories. eg. Category: England international cricketers. This way we can recognise those players who did play internationals but did not play Test, ODI or T20I cricket. Andrew nixon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a definite proposal out of the above? Do we need to venture inside CfD aka Mordor again? ---BlackJack | talk page 06:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to do a full CFD. If we simply create categories as "Country name international cricketers" all in Category: International cricketers by country and put Category: English Test cricketers and such like in those for all countries to have played Test, ODI, and Twenty20 Internationals, taking them out of the "Nationality cricketers]] categories at the same time, that should be fine for a start. Some categories can be a straight rename, as they consist solely of players who played for that country. These are, from memory, Category:Egyptian cricketers, Category:Nigerian cricketers, Category:Federated Malay States cricketers, Category:Straits Settlements cricketers, Category:Malayan cricketers and Category:Hong Kong cricketers. So you can brave CfD with those if you wish. Other players, I suggest we deal with as we come across them. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that looks good. Do you think we should make a formal proposal to the rest of WT:CRIC via a new topic which xrefs to this one? ---BlackJack | talk page 08:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Go right ahead! Andrew nixon (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes please, a summary would be good!–MDCollins (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Tour infobox

I've created a new infobox for cricket tours that can quickly and easily replace the ones currently in use. All of the fields from the old infoboxes are used in the new version in the same format, so there if there is a consensus to move over to the new infobox then very little work will be required to do so. Here are two examples that make use of the new infobox: English cricket team in India in 2005–06 (old) and Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2005-06 (old). Please let me know whether you can think of any improvements that can be made to it. MDM (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just got a concern about alignment. I think the player of the series should be vertically aligned with the touring team data (i.e., left-aligned) and the two header rows by their respective columns. Otherwise, it's okay and looks useful. ---BlackJack | talk page 06:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Left-aligning the player of the series wasn't a problem, but I'm having trouble with the header rows. It seems that if we want to centre-align (or left-align) the header rows then we can't have the background extending all the way across the infobox. What do you think about how it looks now? Would you give the all-clear to convert all the old templates to this new one yet? MDM (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand the difficulty. I'd be happy to go with this as it is. ---BlackJack | talk page 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the player of the series, it now could look like (first example ENG v IND) that the player of the series comes from the same (touring team) - could they go under their respective team? Or centre align (was that how it was before BJ commented?) If centred, could use "Andrew Flintoff (ENG)" to clarify if they haven't been mentioned above - Yuvraj hadn't for example. If it is an obscure series, or of countries that we don't know that much about the players involved. Obviously Flintoff and Yuvraj are obvious to most readers, but others might not.
Is the problem with the headers that we want the text "Test/ODI series" to be centre aligned across the latter two columns, but the background across all three? Otherwise, looks good. No reason not to roll out anyway as far as I know.–MDCollins (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 0.7

This is a DVD release of selected WP articles due out by the end of 2008. At least two cricket articles have been chosen and I wondered if anyone knows of more (the project places a tag on each selected article's talk page). The two I've seen are History of cricket to 1725 and Hambledon Club. I'm surprised by the choice of the latter as it is still underdeveloped.

Unfortunately, cricket is listed as an article that needs cleaning up. But at least we've made a start on it. --BlackJack | talk page 06:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The list of chosen articles is here, all 36 of them. (The ratings of the articles may be a little out of date) I think every wikiproject was notified around mid-September. Unfortunately, the deadline for improvements to articles was 20th October. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I think that's the original draft list which was revised. Several of those articles were rejected because of "recentism". The two I've seen tagged are not in that list. ---BlackJack | talk page 19:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I've got no idea where a more up to date list is. Nev1 (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the list is here and includes articles previously approved in v0.5, like Donald Bradman. Quite a few cricket articles in it. --Dweller (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be it, there's hardly anything in it. Is it complete? YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It does say at the top the list may not be complete because it's updated manually (I certainly hope that's not all of them as a few articles I had my eye on aren't there). Nev1 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We can also nominate articles that aren't on the list. One of hte big criteria in that list is page traffic and interwiki links which is why it has so many modern players. Charlie Macartney (author COI) would be interesting because he has a distnictive style that is very much different to other players. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dé Kessler

Greetings from WP:FOOTBALL! I have just created an article on Dé Kessler, who played international football for the Netherlands between 1909 and 1922, during which time it also appears he played international cricket for the Netherlands - can anyone flesh out the cricket section of his article for me please? Many thanks, GiantSnowman 14:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The only Kesslers that I can find having anything to do with Dutch cricket are JHH Kessler and HAJ Kessler. Sure someone isn't mixing him up with one of those two? Andrew nixon (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Could be - I got the information about his cricket 'career' from the Dutch Wikipedia article on him...GiantSnowman 15:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he is JHH - this website confirms his full name. GiantSnowman 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
His statistics - one documented century (100*) v Incognito.–MDCollins (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Quick paragraph written on his cricket career. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks - any chance you could put an infobox in the 'Cricket' section? GiantSnowman 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Our infobox/notability guidelines don't allow for non-FC players - the stats would be useless (as only misc matches) - I think an infobox won't tell you anything. Also our 'smaller' infoboxes are deprecated, the full infobox will probably outweigh the football one, and probably isn't necessary. Other thoughts welcome...–MDCollins (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
We could put on an infobox without stats on, but as we don't know anything as to his batting/bowling style, the infobox would just duplicate what's already in the football infobox. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
That's completely fine - he was primarily a footballer, after all, and only started to play cricket towards the end of his football career. Thanks for all your help anyway! Cheers, GiantSnowman 16:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of FLs...

After looking at some of the lists of ODI players by country I decided to expand List of Irish ODI cricketers. I feel it's in better shape than most of the articles listed above (perhaps it could form a model for the others, such as what to put in the lead) and was wondering if anyone thought it would be worth putting forward for at FLC? Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks quite good - you need a 'statistics correct as of...' somewhere (probably in the head of the table), and some of the "see also" links are already in the prose and as such can be removed.–MDCollins (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Done as suggested. I'll probably nominate it soon as I'm not sure what else can be done to the article. If everone's happy with the format I may be able to tweak the list of Scottish players and Aussie T20I players (they're not too long and there will be sources available to expand the lead). Nev1 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As promised, it's now a FLC; any suggestions are gratefully accepted. Nev1 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedily choose and improve a biog of a SA great

It seems from the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.7#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_assessment that we're short of a quality article about a SA cricket great.

I propose that we swiftly choose one to improve and do so collaboratively.

Names that occurred to me are: Mike Procter, Graeme Pollock, Ali Bacher or controversially Hansie Cronje.

I suggest we choose one we can find at least one photo for. Please indicate below a) your thoughts on who we choose and b) sign if you're willing to do a bunch of edits over the next week or so. --Dweller (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Choosing an article

I'd go for Graeme Pollock as the only other article we already have a pic for is Cronje, and controversy will make that much more tricky to do in a hurry. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Struck. Being bold, and in the interests of speed, SGGH and I have already got stuck into Pollock's article. Please sign below and come along and help at Graeme Pollock. Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've just created the remaining members of the family that didn't have articles, a couple of which pass notability by a narrow margin, and will be candidates for some deletion-happy prodders, so please keep an eye out!.

Signing up to improve the article

  1. Dweller (talk)
  2. Yarp, SGGH speak! 17:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Mattinbgn\talk 22:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Mdcollins1984 (talk · contribs) - usaul copy editing/reviewing etc

New list

I've just spent a while creating a list of cricketers, codes waus1 to waus262 - though I thought I had already done this. Some names which appear, in their undisambiguated form, to redirect to pages with other titles, should ideally be changed to disambiguation pages. For example, Jane Franklin, which redirects to Jane Griffin (Lady Franklin), probably needs to incorporate both Lady Franklin and Jane Franklin (cricketer).

In which case, I'll then need to fix the link on the subpage - which I shall eventually get to. I will complete this task when and if I create these names.

Would help if I linked to the page: here. Bobo. 17:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boycott

My monthly appeal for photographs, as this article is near enough FA quality if only it had photos of him. SGGH speak! 23:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bimal Soni

A quick query for someone who knows more about Indian cricket than I do. Is Bimal Soni this player who played twice for Rajasthan and would appear to be inaccurately on Cricinfo's record as Vimal Soni? Andrew nixon (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite likely. In some languages, particularly Bengali and Nepali, the "V" sounds are pronounced with the "B" sounds. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
But is it that Bimal Soni, ie, is the guy who played for Rajasthan also the guy in the article as the manager of the Indian national side? Andrew nixon (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I think so. He was born in Rajasthan, he looks to be in his 50s (as per the photo and the cricinfo age). I looked around for information but no sources to confirm. We could ask our detective friend for help or e-mail the RCA for clarification. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Biog Infobox column widths changed

Hi everyone,

Just a note to say that I've tweaked the column widths in the all-singing all-dancing infobox to allow the sub-continent season date ranges (1967/68&ndash1971/72) to display on one row without unsightly wrapping. If anyone notices that it has caused any problems, drop me a line.

MDCollins (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that the width of the infoboxes has increased? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I've increased column 1 (row titles) by 1em, and decreased the remaining 4 by 0.25em (or 0.33 if it is the 3 column stats etc.). At least it shouldn't have done. –MDCollins (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Australian Twenty20 International cricketers

This following article will be nominated for Fetured list removal in 4 days if the following article does not complete the featured list criteria. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Is anybody willing to write a bit about Australia in T20s? I've updated the stats, added a bit about the captaincy and the World T20, but I've now run out of ideas. The lead still looks pretty thin so any help would be brilliant. Nev1 (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dreadful

Selection policy by Australia with eight batsmen when a win is needed. And then dropping the most economical bowler, probably resulting in an increasing run-rate, which would prompt a spread field and giving easy walked singles to India's uncle. Kumble style captaincy! YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 04:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Incredible! If seven and a keeper can't do the job, I am not sure what an eighth will do. New Zealand style selection and a clear sign that the Australians feel they cannot win. Bah -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
And then Sehwag hits the first two balls for four and six....YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think you're dreadful, wait till next summer when you see our lot! ---BlackJack | talk page 05:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done to Krejza after getting hit around early. Makes you wonder why he wasn't picked earlier. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the points raised by Blnguyen (what you doing here? get back to your break!) I think the selection of Krejza is nothing short of astonishing. I am genuinely shocked that the Australian spin resources are so poor that they give a Test debut to Krejza, a specialist spinner with a F-C bowling average of 50+. When Warne was in his pomp, the British media had it that Terry Jenner was training a legion of demon spinners and every kid in Oz wanted to be a leggie. Mind you, at least Krejza's Test average is currently lower than his First Class! --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This guy is one wicket away from only his second first-class four-for in 25 matches (if he takes another scalp in the first innings), and has never taken a five-for... Not the kind of match-winner that Australia need to level the series... OrangeKnight (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
And now he has a seveneight-for! Admittedly he has also conceded more runs than any bowler on Test debut ... -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Best on debut for Australia since Massie at Lords in 1972 I believe! -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Bangladeshi cricketers

This list needs something... Deletion or update, for example... OrangeKnight (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried prodding it to see if anything stirs. ---BlackJack | talk page 13:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I can just as easily keep it on a user subpage if necessary - obviously I would need a spare evening to create it, but it would serve exactly the same purpose - only it would be more up-to-date to the beginning of the 2008-09 season. The main reason that my list of user subpages does not include a Bangladesh section is because I initially assumed that 02blythed and others had done all the work necessary.
In either case, isn't the page slightly mistitled? Presumably the list doesn't include Bangladeshi cricketers who have played solely for non-Bangladeshi sides - not that I know how many of these there are. Bobo. 14:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi I have changed the links of the above article as some of the ones that appeared to be redlinks did have an article but were linked incorrectly. All the redlinks on the article now are proper red links. I did honestly think I had created all first class/ List A cricketers that were bangladeshi up to the summer of 2007. Obviously I was wrong. It seemed when I first stated I may of accedentally missed a few for some reason as most of them seem to begin with A. I have no real feelings on if the list stays or not I just wanted to make you aware that there were not as many redlinks of bangladeshi cricketers as it first appears. 02blythed ( I cannot sign for some reason which has happened alot recently).

The prod worked! I hope I haven't stirred a hornet's nest. ---BlackJack | talk page 17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

0.7 rankings for Pollock

I've asked Blackjack for a quality reassessment.

Meanwhile, the 0.7 rankings seem to be assisted by Interwiki links. I've therefore created a stub on Pollock on simple: and fr: is already done.

Could other editors do similarly on other language wikis? I'm sure we have some editors who are reasonably proficient in some of the subcontinental languages, for example. Anyone handy with Italian? German? Spanish?

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a B-class (see talk page for rating) and I see no reason not to try for GA, though I doubt if it would pass first time. ---BlackJack | talk page 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've dropped a question to a GA reviewer on how close it is to GA. --Dweller (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I try to follow the evolution of cricket on non-English Wikipedias. German Wikipedia and Polish Wikipedia are two versions where cricket is not too badly treated (at least, compared to other non-English languages). On pl:, there seems to be a guy called Roo72 who like to create articles on players (mainly Australians). On de:, Gruenfisch and Henning M seem to be the more interested in cricket. I think you should try to contact them. I don't know if the quality of the interwiki links are important for the 0.7 rankings, if so I'll have to improve the French stub. OrangeKnight (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There's also User:Sam Vimes who contributed to the no: wikis. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
You are too modest OK, fr:wiki also has very good coverage of cricket, considering. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All excellent suggestions; I've left some messages. I don't the quality makes any difference, just the fact that they exist. I suppose the logic is that the more interwiki appearances, the more likely it is that a topic is universally considered important. I'll also drop a line to User:Deborahjay about he: --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Sam's agreed, and will do nn: too. I've also dropped a line to a user on af: (duh!) asking for a stub there. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

New list

I have just created the complete list of first-class cricketers for Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited. In a footnote at the bottom of the subpage, I have listed all the guys who named Mohammad Kashif who have played first-class or List A cricket, and while I can disambiguate most by year of birth, there are two for whom this is impossible - even in the sense of John Doe (cricketer, born month date).

The complete list of Mohammad Kashif's in first-class cricket run thuswise:

Complete list of Mohammad Kashifs:

If anyone can think of a more convenient way to disambiguate these names, please edit my subpage as you feel necessary. Bobo. 01:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You could always use some of the full names (putting 'known as Mohammad Kashif ') in the opening sentence...?–MDCollins (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Raja Mohammad Kashif Khan (44405) and Mohammad Kashif Iqbal (44716) respectively. It's worth a shot. Thank you for the idea Md. Bobo. 02:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Style Q.

Just been asked on my talk page, and found the manual of style a little unclear.

If someone plays a domestic season in a southern hemisphere nation, when showing this in the infobox is it "Transvaal 1974/75" to show over the winter of 74 to 75, rather than 1974-75 which would imply two summer seasons. (this is what Cricket Archive does) or is it 1974-75 regardless of whether it is just the winter or the two summers? SGGH speak! 21:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that consensus is that the / is used for a winter season. However in the infobox, I favour just the plain years (the box does say years and not seasons) so if a player made his debut in the first half of the 1974/75 season I would be tempted to put 1974–79, or 1975–79 if he made his debut after January. That said, I've just reworked the infobox (above) so that the season range 1974/75–1979/80 now displays on one line.–MDCollins (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
With Boycott's case, he played one season for the Transvaal, so do I put "Transvaal 1974/75" or "Transvaal 1974-75"? SGGH speak! 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever we do it should be consistent across all winter seasons (subtle hemispheric bias! :-)) in the infobox, navboxes, the main article body and article and category titles and the project Manual of Style updated to reflect any consensus. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes - to my eyes, the most common practise appears to be 1974/75, (meaning that Geoffrey should just be 1974/75 and consistency across the board and in the style guide should be applied. If this is the case, may I propose that the infobox be changed to read 'seasons' rather than 'years'? If no consensus exists, we should agree on one!–MDCollins (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
When writing Australian bios, I have aggressively removed any and all use of the "/" in refererence to seasons in line with my reading of WP:CRIC#STYLE so many of the comprehensive Aust articles use en dashes rather than backslashes.
I am unsure how else this could be read other than to mandate what I have done. I am not opposed to a change if others wish to but point out that the article titles in Category:Years in cricket and Category:International cricket tours all use en dashes and a change will require a mass rename. In the deepest darkest archives of WT:CRIC there may the details of the original discussion if anyone can find them. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 9#Terminology again may provide some guidance. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted there - that indeed would concur with your practice (and my preferred option), however does it look confusing for season ranges? (I'm mainly thinking about infoboxes here) for example 1974–75–1979–80 produces 1974–75–1979–80. On looking at it again, the presence of the "19" after the second ndash seems to help, but it is a little cumbersome. But having one style in the infoboxes and another in the prose is silly.–MDCollins (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Browsing Category:International cricket tours, I see that the vast majority of articles are named incorrectly using a hyphen, instead of an endash. They should all be moved, leaving the redirect in place. I've started on a few. –Moondyne 04:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No idea where it is now (in the archive), but a long time ago we did have a further discussion on here about "winter season" dates and I'm sure we agreed to use the convention that Moondyne has just been applying to a few tour articles: e.g., English cricket team in Australia in 1861–62‎. We certainly rejected the "/" in favour of the "–", although a lot of articles had already been titled with a "-" instead of a "–". Also, we agreed that the century never follows the endash unless the year is 1900 or 2000: hence, 1898–99, 1899–1900 and 1900–01are standard dates. ---BlackJack | talk page 05:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
My recollection is pretty much as Jack's is, but I also think a hyphen is a "less worse" alternative than the oblique which, in British English at least, has a connotation of indecision. E.g.: "He took a lot of wickets in 1934/35" might mean "in one or other of 1934 or 1935, not sure which", or "in both 1934 and 1935", as well as "in 1934–35". Johnlp (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this solve the problem in the infobox though? I'm not sure using the ndashes make it particularly clear (in bold above). I've been looking at other ways to kill the oblique (putting 1975–76 to 1979–80) for example, but everything I try (including mdashes) wraps the text, which doesn't help. The only thing that I can suggest is to forget the idea of 'seasons' in the infobox, and just go with the first/last dates played for the club. Thoughts?–MDCollins (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd go with the date. More precise. ---BlackJack | talk page 10:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Flags in Infobox cricketer biography

Double problem being discussed at Talk:Graeme Pollock.

First, the flag usage seems to be crufty, in breach of WP:FLAG.

Second, in Pollock's case, the flag is anachronistic, as it's not the flag Pollock played under.

Can the template please be amended to remove the automatic flag, but leave the useful link to the team? --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made a change to the infobox so that when country = South Africa it does not display a flag. If a flag is used for a pre-RSA South African it should be the Union one, but in view of the controversy around this I think it is best if we don't display any flag for South Africans. I would gladly remove all flags myself. ---BlackJack | talk page 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think flags should be in biographical infoboxes where they're decorative cruft. However, they are very useful in long tables such as lists of sporting results. (I think this is pretty much what WP:FLAG says). Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone actually want the flags? I'll give 48 hours for anyone to shout, then I'll kill the lot. Is there any way we can warn any users who don't follow this?–MDCollins (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the team links that appear in infoboxes when you put in someone's country, does anyone else think it's inappropriate? What I mean is ... someone like Rodney Ontong is South African but even though he never represented his country he has a link to the South Africa national cricket team under his name. In the case of non international cricketers a link to Cricket in South Africa would make much more sense. I also would prefer if the flags remained in infoboxes but then again I can't form an argument defending their use other than to say that they make the pages look better. Jevansen (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a long-standing issue with flags but it's more about overuse of them because they can seriously hinder download, especially for users not on broadband. I would rather they are not used at all unless the article does actually discuss the flag. For sporting subjects, that is highly unlikely and I really don't see the point of them. To my technical mind, they are like the "bells and whistles" syndrome that you get with unprofessional system designers and, as in that scenario, they are a waste of space. ---BlackJack | talk page 10:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User box

is there a user bos for project members? I was finally looking to add to my user page and couldn't find on? Lihaas (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this - Template:CricketWikiProject-Member. Jevansen (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Gary Sobers again

Does anyone have access to Wisden and Playfair annuals of the fifties and sixties in which there is coverage of Gary's career in league cricket? I have the 1960 to 1962 Playfairs which provide info about some of his time with Radcliffe CC but I could do with the full picture. I believe he played league cricket from 1958 to 1962, 1964 to 1965 and in 1967. Thanks. ---BlackJack | talk page 10:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have the Wisdens covering the 1964, 1965 and 1967 seasons. You might also find something on CricketArchive, which I know has some Lancashire League coverage. Sobers went to the North Staffordshire and South Cheshire League in 1964, playing for Norton, who duly won the league. Sobers made 549 runs in 18 innings at 49.90, finishing second in the league averages. He was outdone by his amateur brother, Gerald Sobers, also playing for Norton, who averages 50.12. Garry Sobers did even better with the ball, his 97 wickets at 8.38 heading the league averages.
1965 saw a repeat performance, Norton again winning the league. Sobers only averaged 25.38 with the bat, but again topped the league bowling averages, with 76 wickets at 8.03. He returned to Norton in 1967, and they regained the league title. Sobers was fourth in the league batting averages, with 41.83. He was third in the bowling, with 95 wickets at 9.37. (Those ahead of him took only 22 and 24 wickets.) JH (talk page) 10:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
That's great. Thanks, John. ---BlackJack | talk page 16:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox update

Hi,

The flags have now gone. I've made the links to the "country cricket team" more explicit, and so they only appear when "international = true". There is no need for them to appear if not, and can appear confusing (as User:Jevansen implied above. If anyone has any problems with the edits, just let me know.

I will now work on the functionality for dual country players, so that links to both sides can appear, and the country at debut (and last match) appears in the international section (for example Kepler Wessels made his Test debut for Australia and played his last Test for SA).

Does anyone else agree with BlackJack (among others) that the debut/last match years should be used in the infobox, rather than the cumbersome, and possibly ambiguous season ranges? If so, I will tweak the wording of the documentation.–MDCollins (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Two countries can now be shown under the photo (see Kepler Wessels), I've tried to incorporate it into "International info" but it's not working and I'm tired so will try tomorrow.–MDCollins (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea moving away from the flag towards a title. It looks like a caption and looks bad on articles with and without their own existing caption. I would move back to the flag or remove the the caption style phrasing from the infobox altogether.Londo06 08:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for the moment, awaiting further comment, I've moved the 'country cricket team' above the image, under the name. The use of the flag almost certainly breaks WP:MOSFLAG which says
As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes.

Mdcollins1984 12:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On the links to "country cricket team" setting international = true may not be sufficient. We currently only set international = true when the player has played Test, ODI or Twenty20 International cricket, but that means that anyone who has played internationally but not in those forms of the game (eg. Arul Suppiah does not have a link to their national side. Perhaps you have the international=true/false switch and then a separate switch that means the international information section is only displayed when it is filled in. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Something to think about there. There is a little confusion with countries like these, Arul's brother Rohan Suppiah has Malaysia under domestic info (he has played FC and List A, whereas Arul hasn't). When they are essentially domestic teams how do we work it? Of course leaving the international info blank doesn't display it - although the header might still be there. Maybe need some other way to do it, or leave the country info in for everybody (which isn't always accurate).Mdcollins1984 12:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cricket whites vs. cricket clothing

I recently came across this article, which began life as Flannels, and was later moved to Cricket clothing. This struck me as a poor title for two reasons: 1. it deals only with flannels/cricket whites, not all types of cricket clothing; and 2. there is already a general article at Cricket clothing and equipment. Seeing this as a specialist article, I moved it to Cricket Whites, to my mind the most common term, and redirected "Cricket clothing" to the general article. This name is not quite right, as WP policy should probably have it as Cricket whites. As an existing redirect with a history, that move requires an admin. However, it's not for me to request without consensus. What do you all think? Should it be: Cricket Whites (existing) Cricket whites, Whites (cricket), Flannels (all existing redirects), or merged into Cricket clothing and equipment? Gwinva (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I would merge it with cricket clothing and equipment, it's not like the cricket whites article is particularly big. SGGH speak! 11:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I created that article. Some discussion about the page moves can be seen here and there was more on this page thereafter. --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Twenty20 or Twenty20 cricket

Whilst I'm being praised for my suggestions, I might as well keep going. Reviewing the list of top/high importance articles, I noticed that Twenty20 was the main article and Twenty20 cricket was the redirect. Now, I think that it should be reversed... anyone disagree? Reply here or there and once there is some consensus we'll need an admin to do the work, as Twenty20 cricket isn't just a single edit redirect. The-Pope (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Badshahs"

Can someone answer my question at Talk:Lahore_Badshahs? --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And the similar one at Talk:Royal_Bengal_Tigers#Team_name - ta. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I've replied on that talk page about Badshah. Royal Bengal Tiger and Bengal Tiger are the same tiger subspecies. There are some comments (likely to be WP:OR) on the prefix "Royal" for the Bengal tiger that could help on the Talk:Bengal tiger page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I've posted to that Talk page asking for RS. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Also replied to that post on the RBT talk page so that someone in the future is not kept wondering. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Navjot Singh Sidhu

Our article mentions that his playing career was "volatile" and then gives no examples of controversy... --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Test_match}}

Is there any way this can accomodate more than the top runscorer and wicket-taker in each innings. Because with only one slot, Laxman's 200* is not in the Delhi Test scorecard because Gambhir got 206*. Then when a reader reads that Laxman got MotM they won't know why; he scored 200* and 59* and Gambhir 206 and 36. Similarly, Dhoni second-tpo-scored in both innings of hte second Test, isn't in the scorecard, but is MOTM. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 04:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1989-90 shows how I did it. It's a workaround but it is simple and it works. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Very cunning. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 06:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Australia/India 2008 page move

Hello. I recently moved back the article Australian cricket team in India in 2008-09 from the 2008-09 Border-Gavaskar Trophy title created by a page move earlier today. The former title seems to fall in line with the naming conventions for the international tour articles. Any help on what the correct title of this tour should be is greatly recieved, so a consensus can be reached regarding it. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think your name is right for consistency, but you can perhaps avoid the controversy by including notes on the warm-up matches in the article! Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
If the article is essentially about the tour it should be called Australian cricket team in India in 2008-09. For consistency, as Stephen says. You could have a separate article about the Test series and that could be named by the trophy (there are are a few Ashes series articles like that). ---BlackJack | talk page 13:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Warwickshire redlinks

I guess you could call this eighteen from eighteen - although the list is not quite finished.

I am yet to disambiguate the list, I shall complete that task when I wake up later this morning - and I shall fill in the debutantes from 1981 onwards when I get the opportunity.

Nearly forgot to supply the link, it is here. Bobo. 04:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox query

Following the recent changes, whenever I open up a cricketer biog page which has an infobox on it, the infobox makes a small shift leftwards as the final act of page-opening. This leaves it very close to the main text, which is visually less happy. Oh, I know this is pernickety, but... Johnlp (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Hadn't noticed any difference. I've tried looking at one with an older version of the 'box, but it looks the same to me, certainly isn't shifting. Is it any biog, or just the ones where international=false (which is leaving a blank row towards the top that I can't shift atm)? Which browser are you using?—MDCollins 10:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well now, of course, I can't get it to do it, but it was doing the same yesterday. And there seems a variation in the space between the box and the text in, say, Ian Botham and my latest effort, Terry Barwell that isn't explained solely by pleasing wordwrapping in the main text. I'm on IE7 which usually explains most problems. No big deal, but if there is a cure, that'd be nice. Johnlp (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Predictably those examples look the same to me, other than that fact that IE7 doesn't wrap any text (which I didn't realise before), except following a crash and reload of IE it now does. Firefox/Chrome are consistent across the board. That said, if that extra line space can be removed, it may solve the problem. I'm not sure whether it is an infobox specific problem as all the images etc in IE seem further away than in Firefox. Keep an eye on it anyway.—MDCollins 12:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a go. And for tidying up the Barwell infobox. Johnlp (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)