Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

An even worse current Test player bio

Look what De Wet's bio looked like this morning.

It ain't much better now... help gratefully received. Tsk, when are these national selectors going to get it into their heads to let us know if they're planning a surprise call-up? --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ozzie selectors

Just did a quick and dirty c-e of Jack Ryder and noticed he didn't have a Cat as a selector. When I couldn't find it using Hot Cat, I looked at Bradman's article... to see he doesn't have one either. Does it not exist (yet)? --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, lots of FAs/GAs would have it but it doesn't exist, eg Lindwall, Davidson, Loxton, Harvey etc. I think "Cricket selectors of/for Australia" would be the right wording so people know they aren;t just Australians who were selectors but those who selected the national team YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How about Category:Australia national cricket selectors or Category:Australia national cricket team selectors? – PeeJay 14:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for the latter, personally. Do we have similar Cats for other nations? They should align. We should also consider the rest of the Cat structure upwards... --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we confident any proposed category will survive the "process" at CfD? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It should, I think we need it for other teams too. Might be good to set up the convention and create cats for all teams. PeeJay's suggestion of Category:XXX national cricket team selectors seems reasonable and could be used for all teams (perhaps not Zimbabwe and Bangladesh yet, and without national for England and WI). -SpacemanSpiff 20:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely recall the [boring] details, but I think we've run foul of the Cats guys before and suggest we come up with a proposed structure and run it past them before we implement it... --Dweller (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It should, because most of hte ones that were being deleted were becuase the cat was allegedly too small, not because the linkage was deemed to be insignificant for anthing. And in any case, the main CfD policeman might be a reincarnation of a banned user, allegedly YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

On another note, this is for permanent selectors right, not the on-tour ones in the old days where the three most senior players voted? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of categories, the Aussie ODI cricketer cats have just been renamed. I wasn't aware of this discussion before, but it's now different from the rest of our team-player cats. -SpacemanSpiff 14:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, apparently everything is being renamed -- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 16#ODI cricketers. -SpacemanSpiff 14:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it's a good call to expand ODI in the categories. We always write One Day International in the first instance in an article, so in the categories it looks a bit more professional. SGGH ^ping! 17:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but we often use ODI in article titles. Other than that, I just think these inordinately long category names are a bit of a distraction. -SpacemanSpiff 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose to just go ahead and create Category:Australia national cricket team selectors YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 21:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Cricket selectors already existed and a lot of the recent Indian ones are in there YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Indian selectors have been moved under Category:India national cricket team selectors. -SpacemanSpiff 00:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Tonge

I've just had a look at Gavin Tonge, the newest Windies Test player. There was a rather strange stats issue (i.e. the stats on the page weren't his), which I believe I've fixed (can someone please check?). I'm a little concerned, however, by the wording of the (short) entry, which seems a little too close to the Cricinfo blurb at [1] (particularly the second sentence of the wiki article). Can anyone help reword and maybe expand? I've not really got any knowledge of the subject, so can't really do too much with it unfortunately. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've re-written the suspect parts. SGGH ^ping! 10:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the stats issue - Sambot was updating it but had a link to Devon Thomas's profile by mistake.—MDCollins (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cats for cricket admins

Speaking of Bradman and cricket selectors. What should be the naming convention for members of governing board members. Category:Cricket Australia board members? But for bodies with "Board" in them explicitly, we would just say Category:Board of Control for Cricket in India members....?? Or "Members of???" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the naming convention is Category:Members of XYZ now. -SpacemanSpiff 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cricket ball

I have written a lead for this, and if I don't mind saying so, I don't think it's too awful! :) SGGH ^ping! 16:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Only a bit awful ;) Now need citations to get rid of that ghastly template up the top. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 21:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find an article to link 'wind ball' to. I know what a wind ball is, but perhaps it is called something else in the wider world? SGGH ^ping! 07:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what a wind ball is. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Must be an English term but I am guessing it is this

List of English Test cricketers by cap number

Is this list necessary? It seems to duplicate information in List of England Test cricketers. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely redundant. Redirect to List of England Test cricketers. SGGH ^ping! 07:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It is redundant, but List of England Test cricketers should explain the cap number system somewhere. Also I'd like to see a sortable table, but it doesn't work when spilt in to time spans.—MDCollins (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A sortable table with 600+ rows would probably crash some browsers, but that may just be my crappy computer! Nev1 (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sambot

Can an administrator please block Sambot, it appears to be malfunctioning. See here and here. I have left a meesage on the bot talk page and on Sam's page. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is blocked. Sam Korn isn't active currently, so you will either want to maintain the stats manually from now on, or ask someone at WP:BOTREQ to take over the task. It'd probably an easy fix to get it working again, but the source doesn't appear to be public. Amalthea 10:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

All those stats manually ... gotta be joking. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned this elsewhere but I wondered if CA's recent update might be causing the problem?JP (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It could be. I've dropped Sam an email.—MDCollins (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 ICC World Twenty20 venues

I can't make sense of this. This article says four venues will be used - Barbados, Guyana, St Kitts and St Lucia - however in the fixture there is no mentions of St Kitts. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Argh.. going by this, St Kitts will host women's matches. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Brian Lara

Punterdesilva (talk · contribs) and his up keep adding quotes about Brian Lara. See history. Rambling man reverted first and I've now used up all my reverts. In good faith I think but not necessary. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 00:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

On the users IP he made this worrying edit. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 00:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry... dealing with it. If it goes on, let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Vidarbha Cricket Association Stadium

Are scorecards of each match played necessary? I think not, was going deleted by a new editor was updating one and I thought I'd get reverted. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it will get ridiculous when more matches are played there, and precedent articles don't do it either. SGGH ^ping! 10:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

At least I've got some backup if I get reverted! :) Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

Zuner Ahmed (talk · contribs) added nicknames to Inzi and Younis Khan's arts. At first I thought it was vandlaism but ... possibly not. Anyone with a clearer picture? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wisden

In a rush of enthusiasm I created the above category (Are editors still allowed to be so bold, or do we need to fill in forms in triplicate first nowadays ...) Anyway in my enthusiasm, I have probably neglected something or someone that belongs in the category. If so, I would appreciate your assistance in populating the new category. You may even have a better sugggestion for the blurb at the head of the category. Cheers and to the English here, well done to your boys overnight in SA. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In my non-expert opnion, it seems like a valid category. However for editors of the Almanack, who already have the category "Editors of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack", I don't think you need the category "Wisden" as well, as the former is a sub-category of the latter. (You've added the "Wisden" category for Sydney Pardon, though not for the other editors whose articles I glanced at.) JH (talk page) 09:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, Cat:Editors of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack should be a sub cat of Cat:Wisden. I'm also pondering whether Cat:Wisden should be moved to Cat:Wisden Cricketers' Almanack... thoughts? --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Cat:Wisden Cricketers' Almanack was my first thought but on reflection, the Wisden group is much wider than the Almanack nowadays. I added Pardon (and John Wisden) to the parent cat as they appeared, to my antipodean eyes at least, more fundamental to the "Wisden" brand (for lack of a better word) than the other people attached to the subcats. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange list?

I came across List of non-Indian Hindu cricketers today. Quite honestly I can't think of one reason this is a valid list, but I'd like to get some other opinions... cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 08:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Silly.. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It wouldn't have lasted 2 days as a category. AFD'd. The-Pope (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't, but some people like doing these things, usually BJP supporters. Also, simply not having a Muslim or Sikh name, or a European style Christian name, doesn't necessarily mean the person is still Hindu; they could have just gone atheist. Apart from the fact it is irrelevant YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Symonds and Norwich City F.C.

An old issue of Cricketer's Who's Who that I have at home lists Symonds as a Norwich City fan. The book postdates his plumping for Australia over England. I can't, for the life of me, work out what his connection to NCFC would be. Two thoughts - a) it's an error b) [creatively] City play in yellow and green, pretty similar colours to Aussie ODI pyjamas. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Could be in error, but I thought the Who's Who bios were written by the players themselves? Can't imagine Symonds putting the wrong club down...

It could just be that he picked a random club; I mean one of my friends supports Colchester United F.C. despite not living anywhere near there, and when asked why he supports them shrugs his shoulders and says "I don't know"! Could there be a family link to Norwich somewhere...? — AMBerry (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

When asked, this soccer agnostic lists Notts Forest as my favourite club because my grandfather supported them and I think his reason for supporting them is vague as well. --Roisterer (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/The Invincibles/archive1

There's now a debate abotu whether to split the topic.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

honestly can't be bothered reading it all. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

They put up a straight vote YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Read a couple of hours ago, don't care anyhow ... nuff garbage from me, what do others on here think? Aaroncrick (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should make a concerted effort to stop this vote which is completely out of order and is an attempt by about two people to get their own way. Consensus has already been established as support for the whole topic to be featured. Mattinbgn and myself have had our say about this. Anyone else? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just suggested the flag be removed, it's fairly obvious it's Australia. SGGH ^ping! 20:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Third Test, 1948 Ashes series/archive1 is getting no traffic YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Durham cricketers

All Durham first-class cricketers are done and dusted! Four teams down, fourteen to go! Bobo. 17:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done! JH (talk page) 18:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

CfD

Our friends at CfD have been busy again - my Watchlist has gone beserk with all the changes to the ODI Categories. I'm not sure I disagree with the changes, but I find it extraordinary that we didn't participate in the discussions. Best would have been a note from the nom, but did none of us spot the discussions? --Dweller (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you really that surprised? CfD is a world of their own, that us mere mortals only find out about when our watchlists go crazy AFTER they decide what's best for us. I mean I thought that ODI cricketers referred to insects from the Overseas Development Institute.The-Pope (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm... I believe it was discussed on this talk page... wasn't it? SGGH ^ping! 12:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned at "Ozzie selectors" above, though I suppose it wasn't truly discussed. SGGH ^ping! 12:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Missed that. I stopped following that subsection once it was largely dealt with. I guess then it's our fault for not putting it in its own section/my fault for not following this page closely enough. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A Merry (Seasonal Festival of your choice)

I hope that everyone is having / has had a great day. JH (talk page) 09:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, watching The Hogfather. SGGH ^ping! 10:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, same here. Some new books to read. By the way, shouldn't we be having a "straw poll" about this to decide if we should split the topic between those who have had a good day and those are are still having one?  :-) ----Jack | ^{talk page} 11:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll !vote for still having one!—MDCollins (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe both Marcus Trescothick and Alastair Cook have birthdays today? SGGH ^ping! 11:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just finished having a great day, thank you, JH! And let's not overlook Boxing Day, the birthday of Norman Reid, Rohan Kanhai, Mark Lathwell, and Iqbal Siddiqui. Bobo. 01:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Marcus Trescothick

Recently created this list, but a couple of IP users have commented they don't think it should exist as it's not notable enough etc. I believe it is a notable list as he has scored (I'm pretty certain) the second most international centuries by an England player, and as his page is already pretty long, I think it is better suited to it's own list rather than as a section on his page. I am thinking of listing it at FLC, but due to these comments, and generally, wondered if I could get some feedback from those here first, rather than start flaying a dead donkey! Harrias (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't see a problem at all with the list. The content is not included in the main article and, as long as you have a justifiably large content to warrant a content fork (this is close, but I think it'll pass the test) then no problems. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Have initiated the nomination for Featured List status: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Marcus Trescothick/archive1 Harrias (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boycott and Bob Willis

Want to move these two towards FAC, thoughts? SGGH ^ping! 10:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Boycs article has been mentioned on these pages on several occasions. IIRC, it's usually been felt that the lack of photos of the man (or his mother, who could apparently play cricket adequately with a stick of rhubarb) was a severe flaw. I'm not sure that's the case, especially as it does not come into WP:WIAFA. Incidentally, if you can cite it, a comment about Boycs eccentric references to his mum would be a fun addition. --Dweller (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see we have an uncited comment about his mother's pinny. Today he accused KP, memorably, as having less brains than "a chocolate mouse". I've never seen a chocolate mouse, clever or stupid. --Dweller (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"He couldn't bowl marr granny, let alone marr moom!" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet another crummy article about a Test squad player

Michael Carberry. Help gladly received. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't like the word "crummy". It's not a great article, but it's no worse than a lot of our articles on less prominent players, even Test players. I think it's probably fairer to say that a lot of our distinguished cricket contributors have made changes to this in passing, but it hasn't been a top priority with anyone... until now. Johnlp (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're right. Apologies. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with these crummy articles are the fact that they all appear to be articles I've created. •grin• It goes without saying that y'all should probably go through my early articles and expand as much as possible - if they haven't been already. Bobo. 12:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We've all got articles from the past that we wouldn't write in quite the same way now. That's the good thing about this place: there's always scope for improvement, and sometimes self-improvement. Johnlp (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Which young fast bowler with currently no international recognition, will England's selectors call up in the next year to 18 months? I reckon there will be one... just not sure who. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Schrek! Or the other guy... er... begins with W... SGGH ^ping! 12:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Woakes. SGGH ^ping! 12:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You think Carberry is bad, for a guy that has played 26 Test cricket, Paul Harris has a dreadful article! Harrias (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnlp when he says "we've all got articles from the past that we wouldn't write in quite the same way now". Some of mine are embarrassing and I'm slowly trying to bring them up to scratch. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 14:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

All the best in 2010 to everyone at WP:CRIC

And, who knows, by the end of the year England might be top of the pile again for the first time since Illy was captain. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 14:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

They might, if India and South Africa flame out, which might happen YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Third Test, 1948 Ashes series/archive1

Still in need of reviews YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish flag

I want to know what is the status about adding the flag of Irish cricket team to articles such as international cricket seasons? Just prodding the issue. Rakuten06 (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the Republic of Ireland flag shouldn't be used. The Ireland cricket team flag is a copyright free image, but despite that keeps getting deleted for copyright infringement. So you can add it, but someone is bound to remove it. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Lei (Chinese cricketer)

Four articles have been nominated for deletion in the above AfD: Wang Lei (Chinese cricketer), Khalid Butt, Ashraf Mughal, and Chetan Suryawanshi.Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to be made aware that there are several categories of matches that the ICC regards as official internationals outside of Tests, ODIs and T20Is. These include, but are not limited to, WCL Divisions 2-8 (1 is obvious as the matches are ODIs), all ICC Trophy/World Cup Qualifier matches, all divisions of the European Championship, Americas Championship and ACC Trophy (except some matches in the 1996 tournament) and some regional events in the Africa and EAP region. Several other events (such as the ACC Twenty20 Cup) and one-off series also have official status. I am currently working on a full statistical database of all these internationals for CricketEurope that I hope will be a good source for clearing up these misunderstandings. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Khalid Butt definitely meets the WP:CRIN guidelines - the others, I'm not so sure... Hack (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, China were bowled out for 27 by the UAE, but only 12 of the runs were by batsmen. There were 13 wides! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If China end up in the same group as Pak or SL at the 2010 Asian Games I wonder if Gul and Malinga could take 7/1 or something YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In 1979, I believe, Crazy had a humorous calypso about a guy who left China and came to Trinidad to learn about cricket, which he had heard about thanks to Kerry Packer. The rest of the song is built around word plays around terms like "third man" and "night watchman". Had no idea China was playing first class cricket. How much things can change in 30 years... Guettarda (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

China aren't playing first-class cricket, but they are playing official internationals. I don't see what the quality of the team has to do with whether the players are notable or not. This project would consider the players whose only first-class game was for Dera Ismail Khan in their only first-class game - an innings and 851 run defeat - to be notable. The way in which this project would defend to the hilt the notability of someone who played one first-class game for, say, Gentlemen of the South against Players of the South in 1878 but would question the notability of a genuine international cricketer is ridiculous and is the main reason why I've stopped bothering to contribute much to Wikipedia these days. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Should have read the AFD before I commented. Guettarda (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Invincibles Featured Topic

This has been promoted to be a Featured Topic. Many congratulations to all involved, and especially to User:YellowMonkey whose drive and attention to detail have been inspiring. Johnlp (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey certainly holds the Wikipedia rating of 99.94! SGGH ^ping! 18:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Such a shame we all gave him three cheers and he had a tear in his eye. --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for making this possible, we still need 5 more to pass before May I think it was when the criteria changes to a majority being FA else it will get demoted to GT YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Stirling job. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

John Lyon (cricketer)

On 6th January, Cricinfo had an obituary on cricketer John Lyon; as he was a Lancashire lad I thought I'd check out the article and update it a bit. I found that Nick mallory (talk · contribs) had created the article that day. The content of the article had been taken from the Cricinfo website with only a word changed here or there. I've stripped the article back so it's no longer a breach of copyright, but when I explained the situation to Nick I was concerned by the reply.

It looks like he's unconcerned about the problems. I don't think this laissez-faire attitude helps the project, and copyright violations actually harm Wikipedia. I've not really interacted with Nick mallory before, but his response doesn't indicate to me that he intends to change his habits, and that this may be a problem for other articles he's contributed to. Partly this message is to make sure that project members are aware that Nick's edits may be problematic, but I also wonder if anyone else has had similar experiences with him and if this is a recurring problem. Nev1 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the second to most recent new cricketer article, I would say he doesn't have article writing quite down yet, given the stylistic issues. This is a surprise given that I have heard his name around here for a while now. I would suggest monitoring - I think your response was very suitable and hopefully he takes heed - and step up warnings/suggestions regarding copyright violation if such things happen in the future. Despite WP:DTTR which you have agreed with thus far, no one is above copyright laws. SGGH ^ping! 14:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick has done sterling and valuable work over many years, especially on ensuring that all Yorkshire CCC cricketers have an article. I think (without presuming to speak for him) that his concern is usually to see to it that we have an article of sorts on everyone relevant, and then he tends to leave it to others to fill it out with more detail and colour. That's a useful thing to do, and I for one would be sad if we were to discourage him from doing this by over-reacting to what is probably an isolated incident. Johnlp (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you check the difference between the article Nick "wrote" and Cricinfo's profile of Lyon. Having an article that is copied from another source is not only not useful to Wikipedia, it brings the project into disrepute. As I said on my talk page in response to Nick's uninterested attitude, anyone can slip up and there's nothing wrong with mistakes or not understanding copyright and plagiarism as long as you take responsibility for your mistakes and try to correct them. This isn't an overreaction: I've not called for a block or any other sanction and I came here to find out if this is an isolated incident. Nev1 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not condoning plagiarism or copyright infringement. But my view is that bringing this here as an issue as one might do if this was a maverick newbie is an over-reaction. If you look at the contributions to this project discussion page as an example, you'll see Nick is the 16th most prolific contributor here: he isn't some newcomer who needs to be watched, he is one of our more engaged contributors. And if his response to you was a bit scratchy, then deal with it on his talk page or yours, with a bit more WP:AGF on either side. Johnlp (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For someone who's been editing since 2005 and has nearly 10,000 edits I expected more familiarity with copyright issues and plagiarism from Nick. I raised the matter on talk pages and brought it here after receiving no response. Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an experienced user violating copyright is a serious matter, however as I said above I feel that Nev has dealt with the matter fair, assuming there is no further issues. SGGH ^ping! 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Has he retired? Aaroncrick (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The flamboyant tone on many of the olden day English greats like Hedley Verity, the old Hammond version, and Hutton and some others were the things that concerned me a bit more, but since these guys were obvious greats and I didn't know how to flatten them out without any knowledge of the specifics I hadn't done anything yet YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Aus v Pak, SA v Eng

I tell you what, 2010 is starting with some startling Test matches. I can hardly believe what's happening in Cape Town. And I still can't work out how Pak lost that Test. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That was too close. Onions is becoming a specialist rearguard batsman. Nev1 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If England had him and Monty in the same team, they'd never lose a Test match again. <Ahem> --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But they might not win too many either. ;) Johnlp (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

They said the next game would be rained out. So England might win and RSA's rankings drops a lot. The predictor also claims that India will go from 124 to 131 if they beat Bangladesh, which seems dubious unless some bad results from 2006 are expiring from the calculations YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Silly that India's rankings will climb so much. India lost to Pakistan 1-0 I think in early 2006 and narrowly defeated the West Indies (Away) later in the year. They preceded to loose to South Africa (2-1) in 06/07, after winning the First Test (I think, because a lot was made of Tendulkar's struggle against Harris in the Second and Third Tests). Aaroncrick (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, India only drew 1-1 at home to England in 2006. 2006 was a pretty average year for them. And then they only beat Bangladesh 1-0 in early 2007, which would be counted as subpar by the machine YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh that's right. Sections of the Bombay crowd booed Tendulkar when he was out. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thissara Perera

Worrying... a current international player without an article? SGGH ^ping! 11:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that Sri Lanka doesn't get much coverage, and a lot of their articles are lacking, or completely non-existent. It doesn't help that one more than one occasion, articles get created under alternative names, and we end up with two for a player, with slight variations of spelling/names etc. Unfortunately, there isn't the time in the day for me to put work into all these holes! I wonder if I can convince someone to pay me to just sit and edit Wikipedia? Anyone? Harrias (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the Wayamba cricket team article had the name incorrectly spelt. I have created a category for players of this team and started to populate it. SGGH ^ping! 11:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've also created a (very short) stub for Lahiru Thirimanne, while Muthumudalige Pushpakumara is still lacking a page despite having played ODI and T20I cricket. Harrias (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Created another very short stub for Pushpakumara, and have populated categories for Basnahira North and Basnahira South teams. Harrias (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured lists

Just had a quick look through, and a number of our featured lists are looking precarious. I haven't listed any of them for removal, but some of them easily could be if we don't put some work in.

• List of Australia Twenty20 International cricketers

This article requires updating to reflect recent matches. I've just realised that the edits I reverted for being unsourced, poorly written and dreadfully spelt did in fact update the paragraph about captaincy to include the change from Ponting to Clarke, but irrespective, it would need writing far better to remain a FL, so I'm not feeling too guilty about reverting it.

• List of Scotland ODI cricketers

Again, this article requires updating to reflect recent matches.

Done. Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• List of Test cricket triple centuries

This article lacks inline citations, which seems it's only major flaw, although I haven't looked through it in any great detail.

I've sprinkled some. There is a bit of POV/tone issues in the notes. SGGH ^ping! 08:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• List of One Day International cricket records

Not sure about this one, but I was surprised by how short the lead was. It might be alright as it is, but it would definitely be a much better article with a much more significant lead.

• List of Test cricket hat-tricks

Again, lacks inline citations, and although 'as of 8 March 2008' does include the most recent hat-trick, it makes it seem as though the article is out of date.

Harrias (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the FAs at the top of the list are as well. The WI in 1988 has lots of unsourced paragraphs and is not so detailed, and the CWC one is quite skinny. Aside from that the CWC hardly bothers with any hardcore history books either per the research criteria, and misses some of the hardball admin politics. And the comtemporary player FAs are always in need of updates. Bodyline and Tiger still need expanding with some of the political controversies, in my opinion anyway, although if we decided to be slack, an outsider wouldn't know of the content-related faults and we could just be lazy, but we shouldn't YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you dropped TRM a line? He's hot on FL. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Shiv Sena

About their calls for an Australian cricket ban. I expected better of the ABC than to say that Shiv Sena were responsible for not allowing Pakistani cricketers into India, which is nonsense. Also rather silly that CA officials haven't heard of these people when they once dug up a cricket pitch [2] YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boycott and hand drawn images

A user has questioned the use of hand drawn images on the article. At the moment they are in place because there are no alternatives - no images can be found despite extensive searches online for those with suitable licence and requests to flickr users to release photographs. I'm of the opinion that an illustration is better than nothing, until a real photo can be found. User:ukexpat believes they detract from the article and that no photos are better than illustrating ones, particularly given that they aren't professional drawings and are just what Wikipedia users can come up with.

I can recall other articles where illustrations have been used in lieu of photographs and is has been (albeit grudgingly) accepted. User:ukexpat recalls a previous debate where consensus dictated that they weren't acceptable. While he/she looks for a link for such discussion, perhaps we could simply start a new one here? SGGH ^ping! 15:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't help with previous examples, but it seems daft to argue that an absence of images is better than use of illustrations. --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? If the illustration is poor (and I think these are, no disrespect to the artist), they are of little or no encyclopedic value, IMO and could, arguably, be a BLP violation. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He's recognisible from them, so they have encyclopedic value. Your personal POV about the quality of the image is neither here nor there. That said, I'm interested to learn more about how they can breach BLP - please explain. If they breach BLP they should be speedied, not merely removed from the biog. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well we have a subjectivity issue here - I don't think that he is recognisable from them so as far as I am concerned they are of little encyclopedic value, you obviously don't share that view - so we have differing POVs here. As for the BLP issue, a badly drawn image (again, subjective) is in my view just as bad an uncited controversial comment. If I were Boycott looking at those images, I would be insulted... but then maybe that would spur me into providing one with an appropriate license. I don't want to make a big issue out of this, there are more important things to deal with, but I do think we need a wider consensus on this issue generally. – ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you have summarised my points accurately. I think, however, that this is a wider issue than just this article. The recent discussion referred to (that I am still trying to find) related to the use of hand-drawn images in BLP articles generally, not just this one or other cricketer bios. And I am a "he"! – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to offend by saying he/she only to find you were a she/he! :) WP:BLP did not occur to me I do admit. Perhaps a link to this discussion from the BLP talk page? I'll go add one. SGGH ^ping! 15:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP has the following content which I think may be relevant: "Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability. No original research." IMO, the images are NPOV because they do not portray the subject in any condition where any conclusions could be drawn which potentially violate BLP; they are verifiable in the sense that it is what they look like, and that can be checked in non-Wikipedia sources; in terms of original research, as a mug shot and a shot of batting they aren't researching any facts that aren't out there already (how he looks, and that he plays cricket). Thoughts? SGGH ^ping! 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But on the other hand they do portray the subject from the artist's point of view, much more so than a photographic image. – ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there someone in Cape Town who could corner the man and take a happy snap? Johnlp (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We do live in hope. He's not exactly camera-shy. Meantime, I'm unconvinced by arguments that they're covered by BLP. And as the arguments regarding the relative artistic merit are entirely subjective, they should remain in the article. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just e-mail the TMS team and ask them to take one and donate it. Let me try that. – ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail sent, fingers crossed! – ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that "licensed for use on Wikipedia" isn't enough, it has to be under creative commons or public domain or the like. SGGH ^ping! 16:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked many times but unfortunately none of us appear to be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. I used to think our best bet was to request the release of a flickr photo by its uploader, but no luck so far. SGGH ^ping! 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the picture in the infobox looks (to my eyes) a pretty good depiction of Boycott, and shouldn't be problematic. The image lower down, I'm not so sure about. Although probably not intended as such, it looks more like a caricature, and I'm unsure how much that adds to the article? Harrias (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It was used first before anyone ever really considered asking the artist to draw the second image. It has just remained there since then, and when new images arrive it will probably go. SGGH ^ping! 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

this is a related discussion which concluded that the images were unsuitable. SGGH ^ping! 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very confusing discussion, but the main gist of it is about drawings rendered from copyright photos therefore not being fair use. Were either of these drawings created from photos? They'd needn't necessarily have been, but they might. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the may have been based on a series of photos to get the likeness, but I'm not sure. If they were they might have to go, I shall ask. SGGH ^ping! 16:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A single drawing based on a number of photos may be sufficiently distant to satisfy fair use criteria. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

At least this sketched picture draws national coverage! BBC Text commentary, Fourth Test, Day 3, 13.59:

"That pencil sketch of Boycott on his Wikipedia page looks like a rubber Boycott mask you might buy in a cricket-themed joke shop. If you were going to conduct an armed robbery, what cricketing mask would you don?" (Ben Dirs)

—MDCollins (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sid Barnes on the main page

On the day before his birthday, at the moment YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saw that, and thought the date was strange. I suspect it is a coincidence. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's smashing. Worth dropping Raul a line? It may be changeable... --Dweller (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It was coincidence. Jan 19 was already booked for some others. Now on Jan 23 YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why his infobox and CricketArchive profile have a birthday of 5 June?—MDCollins (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC) It passed FAC with this error too. Oops.—MDCollins (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In another bit of coincidence, I drove down Sid Barnes Crescent in Canberra yesterday. --Roisterer (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it sunny today? SGGH ^ping! 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There was considerable confusion about Barnes' birth date and place of birth (mainly as a result of Barnes' own obfuscation). His birth date was discussed at length Smith (1999). I could have sworn we had some lengthy discussions about the date on the article talk page as well but I can't find them. Perhaps the discussions were on this page. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course that does not excuse the error of two different dates in the article and infobox. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If we have RS for both, it's not really our place to decide between them. I think the infobox should read "disputed" and the dispute should be briefly dealt with in the section that deals with his early life. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Smith's biography of Barnes is quite clear - Barnes was born on 5 June 1916 in Annandale, New South Wales. This agrees with the date given by CricketArchive and Cricinfo. Not sure at all where 19 January comes from at all, it is unsourced in the article. Note 3 in the article gives some explanation of the discrepancy in place and in year (but not specific date); Smith speculates that Barnes tried to pinch a few years after the war. I don't believe the body of the article is the place for a detailed discussion of various discrepancies; the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources gives the birth date and place and this is what we should use. The discrepancies can be discussed in the notes. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we should ditch the unsourced date. A trawl through the article history might reveal where it came from. Might have been me! lol --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We could always wait 6 more years for it to appear under the family history records section of the NSW registry of births!

And just to chuck another date into the pot... his military service record has 5 June 1917!The-Pope (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked in Wisden, and it too has 5th June, 1916. JH (talk page) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mattinbgn made the mistake when he rewrote the lead and then later corrected the year only. I wonder who was actually born on that day? Everyone else just missed it. I've corrected it now. The-Pope (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugger! That was careless. Good find -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Wally Hammond/archive1

Up and running courtesy of Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Postcard picture copyright question

This may seem like a bit of a silly question but I know little about these things. I'm sure there's a certain time limit copyright on pictures runs for until it expires and I came across a nostalgia postcard which features Herbert Sutcliffe and Jack Hobbs walking out to the pitch in September 1931 for the Scarborough Cricket Festival. However the publishing mark notes the date MXMXC (1990) so I'm guessing this wouldn't be allowed to be uploaded on Wikipedia? I just thought I'd ask on the offchance that it would be, I'm not bothered but it's a good close frontal shot and thought it may be of some help. Tony2Times (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it 70 years from date of death of originator (ie, the photographer whose copyright it is)? Johnlp (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jappalang may be able to provide assistance, if asked directly. This editor review FAC articles for PD images. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't a photo of them in Australia in 1928-29 be found? YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Michael Smith

This is a little tricky. WP:COMMONNAME means the article should definitely be Mike Smith, IMHO. We already have a Mike Smith (cricketer) who'd fufil WP:PRIME for sure. Should this one be [[Mike Smith (xxxx cricketer)? If so, what added disambiguator? --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Mike Smith (cricketer, born 1967). Harrias (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Though looking at it, I wouldn't necessarily agree with your assessment per WP:PRIME, I wouldn't say either is particularly more likely than the other to be looked up? Harrias (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I was thinking of M. J. K. Smith which just adds to the complexities of Mike Smiths. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but I'd prefer Mike Smith (Gloucestershire cricketer), on the grounds that the county he played for is more useful helpful than his year of birth in telling me which Mike Smith the article is about. And I see that form is already in use as a redirector. JH (talk page) 14:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the counties better than the birth year in principle, especially where there is clarity about which teams people played for and where the cricketers are relatively well-known. But now that players turn out for umpteen different counties in the course of a career, it gets a bit cumbersome (see the various David Smiths/Al(l)an Joneses for examples). I notice with soccer players, where there seem to be a lot more people with the same names, or maybe just a lot more people, the birth year tends to be used and think there may be some MOS directive about this somewhere; footballers obviously move around from club to club more than cricketers have been wont to... until recently. Johnlp (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Statistics at bottom of cricket articles

Are these really necessary? I feel a brief summary is more appropriate in most cases, as MOM/century tables and further jargon just lengthen the article and look particularly unsightly on FA/GAs. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say they can be over the top for modern players, as the team by team breakdowns can give 9 Test opponents and maybe 15 in ODIs, whereas for older players they often only need 5/6 rows. Same goes for the lack of MOM in the oldies, less centuries due to less matches and not-so-flat pitches. Bradman, Harvey and G Chappell aside, most of the other olden-day greats in the ACHOF have less than 15 centuries, and most less than 10. All the modern "greats" such as Border, S Waugh and Ponting have ~30+. A post-2000 debuting player might need 35 Test centuries to qualify as a borderline great nowadays with 20 people averaging 50+ in the last decade (how ridiculous). For older players it isn't a problem. Hassett, Ponsford, Woodfull, Hazare, Morris all have less than 10 Test tons. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• If it's any help, WP:MLB went through a long discussion over a similar issue which even came to a head in a mediation case. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that Staxringold. Thanks for the links and for dropping in. :) Aaroncrick (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gilchrist

Can some take care of this? - as I've already reverted three times. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "one of the greatest" is fine at the moment, hopefully the IP won't attempt to remove "one of the" or change it to just "best" anymore. Crichool seems to have sprinkled his or her own vandalism in the way, but at the moment it reads "He is considered to be one of the greatest wicket-keeper-batsmen in the history of the game" - is that the version we are happy with? I personally prefer greatest to best anyway, because best just makes me think "bestest everset" and other such icky wording! SGGH ^ping! 11:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's fine now. It was changed to: "He is considered as the best wicket-keeper-batsmen in the history of the game." Which I thought was a bit far.... Aaroncrick (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ponting

Folks, what do we think should be done with the Ricky Ponting article? - as it is way too big at the moment. It's always probably going to be crickets biggest article because of his achievements and amount of matches, but, we need to do some trimming of of sections and perhaps create a sub-article. I was thinking something along the line of Captaincy career of Ricky Ponting, as most of the info is from when he became captain ODI in 2002. So what do we think? - and are there any other suggestions? Aaroncrick (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Hill

Hi,

I've created Arthur Hill (Australian cricketer), brother of Clem, 13 months after I found it needed creating! There is an Arthur Hill (cricketer), and I was planning to move it to Arthur Hill (English cricketer, but his CA profile suggests he goes by one of his middle names, thus Ledger Hill. Has anyone got any idea of another source for this, or where the article should be located?

Thanks,

—MDCollins (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He's Arthur Hill elsewhere on CA and throughout on CI. Ledger seems to have been a family name: his father and son both had it too. CMJ's magisterial Who's Who of Test Cricketers has him as an Arthur. Suggest Arthur Hill (cricketer) as a dab page and this one moves to Arthur Hill (English cricketer). Johnlp (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnlp. Harrias (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, per Johnlp and Harrias. Thanks —MDCollins (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Bennett King

Can an administrator please move Bennett King back over the redirect to Wikipedia space? The whole unreferenced BLP issue is starting to get out of control. Is it really that hard to follow policy? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I am merging the article back right now. Ikip 11:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the history of the Bennett King article is now only starting from the date it was incubated. Any way of fixing this? Jevansen (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who have lived under a rock for the past few days, this is just a result of some editors deciding that Unreferenced BLPs is evil and stuff the rules, lets delete them all. If you've missed the fun, be thankful. The Australian project is trying to ward off whatever solution the "consensus" comes up with by just clearing our decks of the 2000 odd unreferenced BLPs. I'd suggest that the cricket project one make up a similar page and do a similar referencing drive. Once I've done all of the AFL players, I'll help out too.The-Pope (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the best way of finding the cricket ones, or would it be a case of trawling through all the category pages? Harrias (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I used WP:AWB. Brief instructions are either on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Unreferenced BLPs page or one of the noticeboard/talk pages linked from it. I can't do the cricket list now, but if it hasn't been done in a day or so I will do it then. I think WP:Football has a list almost 5000 articles long.The-Pope (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I used AWB too! List is now here Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Unreferenced BLPs, 300 odd articles isn't too bad! Harrias (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We used the Category intersect tool on WP India, at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Unreferenced BLPs, we can probably use the same process for articles here. This is getting a little out of hand currently, I came across PRODs for Prime Ministers (I'm not kidding!) and an Olympic medallist deleted for being unreferenced. –SpacemanSpiff 17:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Instead of removing the names from the list, could we just add a status to the side (sourced / PRODded / AfD etc) and perhaps strike the article out? If nothing else, it'll give us an idea of this entire brouhaha was worth it. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A question, just how did articles like Dirk Wellham and Dipak Patel get tagged as "unreferenced"? Each article clearly gives at least source. Admittedly the source is not formatted as a reference but that is not a requirement, merely a preferred method of laying out sources. The articles are admittedly poorly sourced but they are not unreferenced. I propose removing these tags unless someone can convince me that I should not. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not the only case, just take a look at WP:IND/UBLP and you'll get an idea about the mistaggings in the small sample we've gone through. One article had 15 sources including 5 inline cites and was tagged as unsourced BLP, and then ones where the death date is on the article have been tagged as unsourced BLP too! –SpacemanSpiff 23:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well all this stuff isn't likely to achieve much except get a load of bogusly-reffed articles and most POv/negative content comes in by people taking speculation from a source as bald fact, or ismply synthesising, and frankly, they aren't going to check the ref anyway, so it's pointless rambling on their part YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoax?

Tikkavarapu Venkatarami Reddy. Smells like one to me, can't find him on CI/CA. CSD G3? –SpacemanSpiff 08:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, added to Deccan article, too. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of AfD'ing it based on zero CA hits and zero cricket related google hits and zero cricinfo hits. SGGH ^ping! 13:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tikkavarapu Venkatarami Reddy SGGH ^ping! 13:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BLPs

Hello all. Is there a list of this WikiProject's unreferenced BLPs? Best would be if it were in date order, ie how long ago it was created or tagged. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

From a few days ago, User:Harrias made up Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Unreferenced BLPs - but it isn't by tagged date, just alphabetical, otherwise you could sign up the project to User:WolterBot/Cleanup_listing_subscription, but that only runs about once a month based on the database dumps. If you can use WP:AWB or the catscan tool (link on my user page), you can make up your own intersections of pages/cats etc.The-Pope (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There's also the discussion right above this. –SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

James Miller (cricketer)

This guy had a prod tag slapped on him when I checked my messages just now. I'm not around very often these days, but this one could end up going on AfD. Bobo. 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Put a couple of refs in and removed unref'd BLP tag. Johnlp (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

South African flags in articles.

When reviewing List of international cricket centuries by Donald Bradman at FLC, I noticed that it used the modern South African flag. However, Bradman would have played against the apartheid state not the modern one. Considering how important their treatment of Basil D'Oliviera was to the sporting boycott, I think it is important to get straight which matches were played by apartheid South Africa and which by the modern side and use the appropriate flag.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this before and the rainbow era flag is everywhere, and we were going to change to the modern infobox that doesn't use flags to avoid the problem of players who played under two flags or a regime change, but it hasn't been done yet; an infobox would be nice. Also, there is some legal controversy as to when the Australian flag became the national flag, because according to some, the Australian flag was not the national flag until the Flags Act of 1953 because the Union Jack was still the official flag...although I know that the Aus flag was carried at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Not to mention that Australia wasn't a coutnry before 1901. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Australia doesn't strike me as so controversial especially if both were in some degree of official use. It's a big job to fix everywhere. However, when it comes especially to featured content, we really should do our best to get even the nitpicky things right.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Vincent Barnes

[3] That's an unbelievable bowling average and S/R for someone who played this side of 1975, isn't it? What was that about? SGGH ^ping! 17:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He played most of his matches in the Howa Bowl, as far as I know. Low scoring was common so I imagine most of the bowlers had low averages.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Our text includes this: "Although the matches hadn't been given first-class status at the time, the UCB requested them to be and record were amended to include the 216 Howa Bowl matches as well as 7 other representative matches between 'non white' teams." This seems a poor, and politically-motivated decision by the ICC. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, especially given some of the matches of a much higher standard that don't have first-class status. To be frank, the entire first-class record needs a re-think and should be completely rewritten. I'm still none the wiser as to why Smokers v Non-Smokers matches from the 19th Century deserve first-class status! Andrew nixon (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Very possibly true, but was it not an even more politically motivated decision that the cricketers in this competition were not permitted to play "official" first-class cricket in SA at the time, hence the creation of the competition? Also, if we are judging the quality of cricket by the scores, I understand from the Wisden article referenced in the Howa Bowl article that the pitches were very poor, leading to low scores.--Sarastro1 (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, and of course the pitches were poor precisely because of the "non-whites" nature of the competition. Scores could have been much higher had it had the access to the same grounds that the "whites only" competition had. I think Barnes just happens to be the player affected most by the decision to make these games first-class - without them I think he played just a handful of FC games. It also affected some other more notable players - Basil D'Oliveria had three or four games added to his stats by the decision. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The cricket quiz...

...doyen of all WP quizzes, is in danger of expiring through lack of questions (and people to answer). Johnlp (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And you had to go and ask such a difficult question... --Roisterer (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

...oh, but it's so simple (when you know the answer). Johnlp (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny that :) —Aaroncrick (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

West Indies flag

It is asserted here that the West Indies Cricket Board flag is copyrighted. I agree that it probably is, which means that the image will be removed from Commons. In that case, it should be re-uploaded here for fair-use on the WICB article (only!) and we will have to remove it from every other article. {{cr|West Indies}} can remain, but a null transparent placeholder will be rendered instead (like {{cr|Ireland}}). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoever is removing the Windies flags from infoboxes is leaving quite a mess behind. Jevansen (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps now is a good time to update those articles to use {{Infobox cricketer biography}} instead of {{Infobox historic cricketer}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Willie Rodriguez's infobox: now the text looks pretty inadequate... Johnlp (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

sub-discussion about Ireland flag

Note, of course, that the Cricket Ireland flag isn't actually copyrighted. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can source that, then we can restore an image. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it actually possible to source something like that? Showing that something IS copyrighted is incredibly simple in most cases - it is usually marked as copyrighted. But the reverse? I'm not so sure. I know the Cricket Ireland media manager personally, but he doesn't see the point in contacting Wikipedia in what ever way he needs to just to confirm what to him is already obvious. And I agree with him. The flag isn't copyrighted, end of story - or at least it should be, but the increasingly bureaucratic nature of Wikipedia prevents it from being. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have signed and ratified the Berne Convention, so copyright on the logo (and derivative flag) is automatic. Yes, that is incredibly simple: it is copyrighted by default. But it is also incredibly simple to show that something is not copyrighted—there would be an explicit license (e.g. statement placing the creative work in the public domain, or perhaps a Creative Commons license) from the original creator of the work. So unless we have that, the default condition applies. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

List of International centuries ...

Zscout370 (talk · contribs) has kindly added orphan tags to all the players century FLs ... —Aaroncrick (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't they linked from their main pages, or does the AWB detect less than 5 or so? As most of the ones who have FLs are top century-makers, a navigational template of folks with 25+ centuries or whatever would get them all linking together YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they are all linked from their main pages... —Aaroncrick (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed them from the ones on my watchlist. As long as they're not totally orphaned, I don't see a problem. And that's what you get from blind use of AWB. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is a navigational template justified though? We have a lot of century lists and methinks it'd be nice to be able to jump from the Don's list to SRT's and from SRT to Dravid and so on.–SpacemanSpiff 18:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Perhaps a template for, say, the top 20 century makers? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be straight-forward enough to include these fellas in a template? Any volunteers, or should I do it? And clearly there's the ODI list as well... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just started, will post the link here once I have the draft up and you can make any changes you like. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 18:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got a list of Lara's centuries already started on my sandbox somewhere which I can work a bit more on soon. Harrias (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• NavBar is at {{International cricket centuries}}. Lots of FL opportunities. –SpacemanSpiff 19:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Dare one suggest the same could be done for "five-wicket hauls"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Will do that once I finish the Women's Test cricket list; I don't want to start the NavBar without a blue women's list.–SpacemanSpiff 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Could the number of centuries be added in brackets into the navbar?—MDCollins (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that some 'rule'/qualifier is made for deciding which players a) have these articles, and b) are used in the navbox (preferably the same qualifier). The top 20 has been suggested by TRM, or over 20 centuries? Having arbitrary lists for players we like etc, doesn't seem right for this project somehow. I know Trescothick has got one, but he doesn't even feature on the statsguru top centuries, which I assume is >15 centuries.—MDCollins (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Trescothick has one for two reasons; firstly his article is long enough anyway, without adding this list on the bottom of it, and secondly because he has scored more international centuries than any other English player with the exception of Gooch. I'd say as with all pages the issue is notability and split-ability. If the player in question has a short page, then the centuries can probably tag onto it, if not, it would need a separate article (within reason). Harrias (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did the navbar for 25+ international centuries (Tests + ODIs + T20s) and Tresco features in that. I'll add the number of centuries in. –SpacemanSpiff 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense now; without wishing to undo/redo any hard work, another suggestion would be to have one navbox with 3 rows/sections (Test/ODI/T20I) to make it easier to see how the centuries were scored with criteria for say 15 Tests, 15 ODI and 5T20I or whatever. It would seem slightly more relevant than a collection of names with match types mixed up. Could include a combined section with a higher qualifier, 40? Maybe that's just me! An idea anyway.—MDCollins (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bihar cricket team

Bihar cricket team redirects to Jharkhand cricket team which is wrong. Bihar and Jharkhand are two states of India and page for one state should not be redirected to other state page.Shyamsunder (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that when Bihar was split, the team just continued to operate under the name Jharkand, rather than the team splitting as well. Bihar doesn't have a FC team atm YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack

What happened here? Was anyone on the project aware of this? Andrew nixon (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's crazy SGGH ^ping! 11:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, he's been indef blocked because one of his undeclared socks participated in AfDs. Policy does appear to say that one shouldn't do this, but it seems a technical breach of policy, rather than an abusive use of socks (eg block evasion), or disruption in a way that would justify indef blocking. Unless I've missed something, a warning would seem to be more appropriate than an indef. I'll have a chat with the checkuser. --Dweller (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Though why would he have any alternate accounts? SGGH ^ping! 11:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

He was involved in that dispute with a user about self-referencing a while ago, but I hope the indef block means blocked until he gives his reasons or apologises and promises to never do it again. Hope it's just a case of his relative/housemate sharing a computer than anything more sinister. As for the editor who reported him, is using an IP address considered a sockpuppet in itself, or is that sort of disguise allowed?The-Pope (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly legitimate not to create a username, and I do know of very regular (and well known and respected) editors who only use an IP address. However it is very unusual to find a regular editor who is informed enough to file SPI requests who doesn't have a username. But there is no policy against it. SGGH ^ping! 12:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just on a quick check, the IP address that submitted the evidence has no previous edits. Seems very bizarre, especially given that all that was posted on the discussion after the initial evidence on 3 January was a query regarding policy. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

True. Perhaps it was an editor wishing to be anonymous, or at a different work station. SGGH ^ping! 14:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just read the investigation, and the editor who reported him seems very knowledgable about Blackjack's arguments with User:HughGal, and "Doctor Tillman". This person has been blocked himself as a sockpuppet. It all seems tied up to a dispute that has been going on for a long time, and it could probably do with untangling. HughGal has used lots of IP addresses before, some of which are blocked. BJ also complained about HughGal (over the Verity article) on 3 Jan 2010, when the report was made. All the editors mentioned seem to tie up somehow. It could do to be looked at very closely.--Sarastro1 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

BJ has explained it here.–SpacemanSpiff 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that BlackJack was not informed that he was "on trial" until after sentence was passed and his editing rights withdrawn. That stinks. JH (talk page) 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing stinks. Something is definitely a bit fishy about the entire situation. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The way BJ's external disputes have drifted into WP may often have been irritating, but his energy has never been in doubt and his contribution to the cricket articles is huge and irreplaceable. How can the project as a whole justify treating one of its most prolific contributors in such an unfair way on the say-so of someone who can't even be bothered to identify themselves? Johnlp (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think it's compulsory to notify people that they have been accused; that has been abused here. To have BJ blocked for this feels wrong. It seems to me that the Orrelly Man account was a legitimate use of an alternative account to escape what is effectively stalking. Ten votes in AfDs does not warrant a block. Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Orrelly Man's AfD votes, I'm left wondering where the abuse is and how they were disruptive. If they weren't, where was the point in the block?

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game events: result was delete, Orrelly Man voted delete
2. two comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolkata Test Match 2001 Ind vs Australia but no votes [4] [5]
3. started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaming Response Research Foundation which resulted in a deletion; voted delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trashball which resulted in deletion
4. started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game (simulation) which resulted in keep but is a terrible article
5. started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenrothes cricket club the result of which was delete
6. started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Conference (MIAA) which resulted in keep but a school football league doesn't seem notable and I'm not sure how it survived. Maybe worth looking at again (note: Pastor Theo (talk · contribs) who voted in it was later revealed as a sock of a banned user).
7. started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Softball Association the result of which was delete
8. started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zugball the result of which was delete
9. started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games on ice the result of which was delete
10. started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenrothes cricket club the result of which was delete
11. voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2059 (2nd nomination) the result of which was keep

That's a pretty decent strike rate. Regarding this discussion, BlackJack didn't say what he thought on the subject, and what is wrong with this? Also, WP:ILLEGIT just says that "Voting more than once in polls" is not allowed, which did not happen. The IP who filed the investigation misrepresented the case. Nev1 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The blocking admin has commented on the situation. Nev1 (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I admit I still don't know why he had so many alternate accounts. Surely even if you are escaping harassment you only need one. SGGH ^ping! 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I think. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And if the block is going to be shortened BJ needs to fill in this information first. SGGH ^ping! 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well he now seems to have left Wikipedia, and I'm not surprised. Perhaps in time he will reconsider, though I wouldn't care to bet on it. JH (talk page) 09:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And also appears to be using his IP address to edit... —Aaroncrick (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The third account was begun only a few days ago, after the other two were declared "busy". The IP address was used only yesterday. --86.148.207.61 (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BJ

He was using the sockpocket to pose as someone else. If you look at the Orrelly thing. Having looked at this and knowing a bit about a few of the areas covered, Jack was somewhat omnipotent in his tone. Also he did self referenced. That can't be right when it was a self published e-book.FirstComrade (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've shrunk your header to include it in the thread above. I don't know enough about Blackjack's contributions to comment, but I would be careful what accusations one entertains. SGGH ^ping! 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Am I alone is getting a bit fed up with the way new users and IP addresses are coming on here basically to slag off someone who's made a huge contribution to the cricket coverage on WP? I think we're all now aware that BJ bent and broke a few rules and that there are things that should be tidied up or changed where he misused accounts or overdid the self-reference. Fine, and if some of the newcomers want to help do that work, then they're very welcome. What I find less welcome is this moralising, sanctimonious tone and the re-statement of what appears almost to be personal animosity. This isn't the place for that kind of thing. This is a forum for volunteer people who enjoy cricket and want to improve WP's coverage of it. For all his faults, BJ did a lot of work in that regard. If our new users want to help, then fine; if not, then take your fight elsewhere, please. Johnlp (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious these IPs and new accounts are the same person who's been harrassing BJ. Either get a CU on them or revert their edits and ignore their trolling. The issue is closed and this person is trying to cause more trouble. Plenty of what they say is utter bollocks. --Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I didn't agree with the first reversion of the above comments, this was the suggestion I made to mattingbn as well. SGGH ^ping! 18:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, two users, the above User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge seem to be going around making edits to articles which Blackjack was involved in. They have both altered his various talkpages and Brownedge has made sweeping changes to Variations in first-class cricket statistics and Champion County and not made any comment. He just seems to have removed a lot of material which Blackjack put on, and which ties into this ongoing and increasingly ridiculous feud. I've undone the changes to the two articles, but this is getting ridiculous. And possibly bordering on psychosis.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)‎

• I've semi-protected Variations in first-class cricket statistics for a week. It's quite obvious there are multiple sock-drawers operating here and some off-wiki animosities are getting moved here. –SpacemanSpiff 20:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock?

Well teh blocking admin doesn't seem to mind, and the discussion above seems fine with BJ, and the other party was already banned while BJ was not. On another note, Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) was incorrectly taken out by an admin without bothering to do a CU, per WP:DUCK, as though every person writing about English cricket are socks of each other YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the IP reporting made comments an WP:ANI regarding Blackjack circumventing his block. SGGH ^ping! 11:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, here it is. It seems Blackjacks IP has been blocked and another SPI has been set up. SGGH ^ping! 11:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't say I see eye to eye with Jack about the ACS, his former involvement with which has been the cause of some of his troubles on here, but for Wikipedia to ban him is like the French Revolution executing Danton. It was said of the revolution that it finally emulated Saturn and devoured its own children. Wikipedia has lost itself among its ludicrous rules and can no longer identify with individuals. How can it ban Jack and allow Fieldgoalunit to continue? The site has little enough credibility left in the real world and it needs editors like Jack, but I bet he will not return. --JamesJJames (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Cricket articles at review

Peer review

• Wally Hammond • peer review

Featured article

• Sam Loxton • review
• Montague Druitt • review

Good article

• Sourav Ganguly
• Cameron White

YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated Harrias (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A bit early?

Ashes 2013 turned up on the new page list today. Obviously it will happen, but is it too early to have an article? Is it worth fixing up the article or just delete it as excessive crystal balling? The-Pope (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally think there is too much crystal ball. The venues, even the holders, are unknown. SGGH ^ping! 13:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Kill it.—MDCollins (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've prodded it. Let's see what happens, then take it to AfD if it survives the prod.—MDCollins (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC) The prod has been contested. If anybody feels in agreement about deletion, would they mind taking it to AfD? There's a couple of references now, which apparently mean the WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply.—MDCollins (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few clean-up tags, if it does stick around it's a terrible article, 'test cricket' just makes me shudder, but I'm not going to spend time fixing an article that isn't necessary right now! If it does survive, it needs moving to 2013 Ashes series too. Harrias (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this troll still operating on the site?

More hypocrisy from the site where anyone can edit, is it? User:HughGal is still here operating as both User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge. Isn't the resident sad case here going to see to it that he gets blocked again? Perhaps he could get his "sockpuppet" User:Burpelson AFB to do it for him?

Or perhaps one of the alleged "administrators" could do something about it? --86.143.140.222 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, well. User:HughGal turns out to be the same person as User:Fieldgoalunit. He is a troublemaker here for confrontation only. He should have been banned ages ago. --JamesJJames (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Somerset County Cricket Grounds

I have created a list of cricket grounds on which Somerset have played home matches (see my sandbox). However, I am having trouble coming up with the appropriate name for the article, I've had a few ideas, but none seem entirely right:

• List of cricket grounds in Somerset – immediately disregarded as that would cover all the grounds, which would be a huge number, and not what I am listing.
• List of county cricket grounds in Somerset – seems the best name but, one of the grounds Somerset played home matches on is in Devon, while two are in Bristol, which isn't exactly Somerset.
• List of Somerset County Cricket Club grounds – sounds clunky to me.
• List of Somerset county cricket grounds – slightly better, but ambiguous maybe? Harrias (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on ruling out option 1, I don't really like option 4 either but I can't put my finger on why. Of the other two, I'd probably lean towards option 3 on the basis that, if I were searching for that article that's probably the phrase I'd search for. — AMBerry (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I too prefer option 3. It might sound clunky, but it is the most precise. Do any other counties already have such a list? If so, then there's a lot to be said for keeping the naming consistent. JH (talk page) 20:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can tell; if they do, then they have been well hidden! I'll got with option three, I agree it is the most precise. Harrias (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's got to be 3. Most grammatically correct. Hey, it's not an exciting title, but it's an accurate one, and that's what counts!—MDCollins (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It might also be neat to see how many games each ground has hosted, if such information is recorded somewhere. SGGH ^ping! 10:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to add that in next, should be able to get it from CricketArchive without too much hassle. Harrias (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot which automatically updates unreferenced biography of living persons daily

RE: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 34#Unreferenced biography of living persons bot to get projects involved in referencing.

Hello wikiproject, I requested a bot which will update unreferenced living people (BLPs) daily. User talk:Betacommand is willing to create this bot. Since you already have a /Unreferenced BLPs page, this shows your project really cares about this issue.

I just need a list of projects who would like to test this bot. Please let me know here if your project would like to do this. Thank you. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for it, although I personally don't see unreffed BLPs as a huge issue within this WP, where most content isn't contentious, I do see the merit in making sure it doesn't get deleted! Harrias (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, I will let them know. I share your same views. If someone objects, please let me know. This seems like a pretty uncontentious action to me, and the reaction has been all positive. Thanks Harrias. Okip (formerly Ikip) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

While a bot is being worked on, here is the list:

1. Azmat_Rana
2. Dean_Elgar
3. Kyle_Wealleans
4. Martin_Suji
5. Mazhar_Khan
6. Mehmood_Quaraishy
7. Michael_Sturt
8. Mike_Murray_(cricketer)
9. Nick_Horsley
10. Patricia_Whittaker
11. Ryan_Hurley
12. Stephanie_Power
13. Steve_Liburd
14. Sunil_Narine
15. Tarisai_Mahlunge
16. Tonito_Willett

Seems rather short... Okip (formerly Ikip) 11:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

List of unreferenced BLPs with google news, scholar, books and first paragraph of article

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Unreferenced BLPs Okip (formerly Ikip) 05:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yabba error?

The quote about the pigeon and statue. Isn't that said to be about Jim Burke? In which case Yabba was already dead by then? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

With anecdotes/quotes like that, there are often multiple attributions, and it's hard to tell which, if any, are genuine. But this fairly authorititive source credits it to Yabba. JH (talk page) 10:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Irish and Scottish cricketers

It seems unreasonable to me to consider Tom Horan an Irish cricketer and Archie Jackson a Scottish cricketer]? Yes, they were born in Ireland and Scotland respectively but they did not play any cricket there, not even junior or club cricket. On the same basis, Moises Henriques would be a Portuguese cricketer and Freddie Brown was a Peruvian cricketer! What do others think? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 18:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Not sure why this has been added to these cricketers. They are already listed as Australians of Irish/Scottish descent. This covers it for me. They have no cricketing connection with Ireland/Scotland.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 63#MOS naming was a discussion on similar lines. I found Andrew nixon's distinction to be quite compelling. —SpacemanSpiff 20:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am comfortable with the distinction and terminology (i.e "Ireland" vs. "Irish"). Horan is quite clearly not an "Ireland" cricketer. My question more along the lines of "Is Horan an "Irish" cricketer? Yes, he was born in Ireland and yes, he is a cricketer but I am not so sure that makes him an "Irish cricketer" in the same way that Craig Kieswetter, and about two dozen others (!), are quite legitimately an "England cricketers" and "South African cricketers". For me, use of the term "Irish cricketer" should mean more than merely born in Ireland and played cricket. the cricket should at least have some tie to Ireland as well. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw remove it. We aren't going to say that Arnie is an Austrian pollie, or that Owais Shah is a Pakistani cricketer. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mother Teresa was classified under Category:Bengali Nobel laureates before I removed her, so I'd agree, just thought that WP:CRIC had defined this earlier. —SpacemanSpiff 04:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The guy is called ARCHIE for feck's sake (he might as well have been called Angus, Dougie or the like), was born in Rutherglen to Scottish parents and spent part of his childhood there. That makes him Scottish, even if he did play for Australia (which makes him Australian too). On another note, I'm well aware that many cricket fans in Scotland think/behave as if they're English (they're not) and support England, but that's still not good enough.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC) p.s. On the rugby pages, there is a differentiation between players nationality (Scottish/Australian in this case) and the team they played for (Australi)

I don't dispute any of the first part of your comment, he can certainly be (and he is in other cats) certainly defined as Scottish, my question is "Is he a "Scottish cricketer?" I say no. The second part of your statement appears to be a strange slag-off at Anglicised Scots, how that is relevant in this case I don't know. I would support Mike Denness and Ian Peebles being categorised as "Scottish cricketers" as their scottishness and their cricket are linked. With Jackson they are not. To hark back to my earlier example, it is a nonsense to call Moises Henriques a Portuguese cricketer even though he is just as Portuguese as Jackson was Scottish. The nationality and the cricket are not linked. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ireland flag - threshold of originality

The Ireland cricket flag appears to be the green shamrock, on a blue background as seen [here]. This image is certainly that used by the ICC when they show the flag icons representing their associate members and indeed in the pages of Cricket Ireland. I note that this is not allowed to be shown on articles to represent the Ireland cricket team in general on the grounds of potential copyright violation. I have two main points:

1. For the specific article on the Ireland cricket team I am suprised it is not already shown, because it would fall under "fair use" to use it here. There is no question about that based on a plethora of similar examples.
2. With regard to the general use of the flag as an icon etc, fair usage would not be permitted for an image under copyright. However, there is surely a strong case to be made for the fact that the flag does not breach the Threshold of originality. The blue background can cretainly not be under copyright. As for the image of the three shamrocks. First, shamrocks per se are certainly not "original work" in terms of representing Ireland. The use of three shamrocks as an image is also something that was used by the Ireland rugby union side since at least the early 1930s, and before that it was a four shamrock motif. The design of the shamrock badge is in no way intricate. Has the case for this not being copyright using the argument of "threshold of originality" been made already?Kwib (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cricket articles at review

Peer review

• Wally Hammond • peer review

Featured article

• Ian Meckiff • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Meckiff/archive1

Featured list

• List of Somerset CCC players by number of appearances • review
• List of international cricket centuries by Brian Lara • review

Good article

• Cameron White

Updated version of list. Harrias (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated. Harrias (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cricketers that died during their career

Due to the unfortunate accident with the luger at the Olympics I stumbled upon this page. While there is a cricket section it seems very short to me considering the number of cricketers that lost their lives in the wars, particularly WW1. Perhaps people could bear this page in mind and add cricketers to it as you come across candidates. --LiamE (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Similar to this in my sandbox if anyone's got more time to me to carry on with it!—MDCollins (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance_cricket_articles

Some very strange inclusions there, to my mind. --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure the Cricket Boards/Councils need to be there, certainly not the smaller ones...—MDCollins (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it was spotting the European one that made me decide to post here. I wouldn't even consider that "high" importance. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

People are more interested in the teams than the boards, and probably more the players than teh abstract articles on rules and all that. But it's easier to not bother too much with importance rankings YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 00:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Is toss (cricket) really Top importance? If the term "Top" is to be meaningful, I don't think that it shoukld apply to more than half a dozen or so articles. JH (talk page) 09:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's more a tool for us to keep track of what, theoretically, needs to be our best work. If it is to useful, we need to look at reshuffling all of these.—MDCollins (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Key biographies is an informal listing of highly-rated players. I guess the teams, Lord's, MCC and a few others sch as cricket, Test cricket, history of ??? wold be top, along with maybe 10 players? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 23:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/to do

I've just decimated the list of cricketers on the basis that with a lot fewer we might actually get some of these done. Some of the names have languished on there for more than two years: I have created quite a lot of articles in that time, but have barely ever been moved to tackle the ones someone (an IP address) has largely been responsibile for putting in a haphazard and not wholly helpful way there. Perhaps we might also have a second group of articles that are "in trouble": not well reffed; lacking links etc. Johnlp (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The unreffered BLP list has to be a priority for us, as there's at least a risk of them being deleted en masse. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Johnlp (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Progress

Date	Unreferenced BLPs	% done
24 Jan	355	0%
31 Jan	301	15%
7 Feb	281	21%
14 Feb	242	32%
21 Feb	221	38%

Harrias (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the list? The only link I can find (further up the page) is now red and has been deleted. Am I missing something?—MDCollins (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That was the talk page. It is at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Unreferenced BLPs. Harrias (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Gilly

Is this a) correct and b) encyclopedic? (Insert the missing word in the diff for yourselves) --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct or not, it's reverted. Random statements that don't go beyond some insinuation, with a vague hint of being part of the autobiography don't belong. There were rumours, but that doesn't justify the addition in its current form. —SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, both players have talked about it; it was in 2001-02 and some spectator during the 2002 tour of RSA put up a defamatory banner and then Gilchrist scored a century and broke into tears apparently. Slater talked about it in Enough Rope with Andrew Denton; apparently it caused a breakdown in relations between the two although both are quite adamant that the child was not born out of wedlock` YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 00:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That context is required, if added :) —SpacemanSpiff 03:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable ?

[6]. [7] If it is started, I will add to it. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. F-c cricketer is notable by definition. Johnlp (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cricketer up for deletion

David Drury, former List A cricketer with Cumberland, up at AfD here. Stats here. Bobo. 11:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Another cricketer up for deletion

James Rice (cricketer), who played three f-c matches in the early part of the 19th century. JH (talk page) 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Test cricketer speedied twice! Amazing!

Maria Fahey of NZ YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a little bit more detail to the article, so hopefully it shouldn't happen again! Harrias (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SGGH.... speedy tagging women's FC teams YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 23:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I "hung on" to the only one that got speedied. Should be removed. SGGH ^ping! 23:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

External link

Is this edit adding a link to whocomments.org an appropriate External link? SGGH ^ping! 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't really think it's necessary.—MDCollins (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:English cricketers of 1969 to 2000

Does this category serve any real purpose? I'm not sure I can see one; found it on David Drury's page, and it is very sparcely populated. Personally I reckon ditch it, but if not, can we at least get some more articles in it? Harrias (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There's quite a handful of them here: Category:English cricket in the 20th century. Not sure of the purpose either. I assume it is for players who played (FC?) between the two dates. Boycs is in more than one for example.—MDCollins (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they were User:Moondyne and User:BlackJack's creations. The instruction for 1890-1918 says:

The years 1890 to 1914 have nostalgically become known as the "Golden Age of Cricket". This category is a companion to English cricket seasons from 1890 to 1918 and is to be used to categorise the notable players who were active at the time.

Notable appears to be a bit subjective. All or nothing?—MDCollins (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference as I see it is that the concept of the Golden Age of cricket is certainly notable and been written about by many writers, independently of each other. I am not sure that the other periods have anything like that level of notability as an "age". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete?

I have placed a deletion tag on Grand Master(Cricket), I don't know if it's the right tag as nothing seems to have been discussed anywhere regarding it. Personally I think get rid of it, but just seeing if I've gone about it the right way before including it on the cricket articles for deletion page. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fansite worship. The nickname is discussed in Tendulkar's article sufficiently. The rest is pure fansite rubbish and original research/made up. SGGH ^ping! 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

More eyes needed

Hi, can we please have some more eyes on David Warner (cricketer)? The page has been vandalised three times in the past day and I've used up my three reverts under 3RR. I'd rather not risk sitting on the sidelines for an enforced wikibreak, although I'm confident that all three of my reverts are fair. As such, I'd appreciate if someone could watchlist the page and deal with the next wave. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, WP:3RR specifically excludes reverting vandalism, and given the last months fun with unreferenced BLPs, I'd feel more than comfortable continuing to revert any contentious unreferenced information. - but from the 3RR page...

• Obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may have to revert vandalism repeatedly before administrators can respond.
• Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
• Content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida (where Wikipedia's servers are located), such as child pornography and pirated software.
• Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). (my emphasis) What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.The-Pope (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, you can revert vandalism all you want. So long as it is vandalism as defined in WP:VANDAL. SGGH ^ping! 12:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that clarification. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

New articles at review

Peer review

• Wilfred Rhodes • review

Featured article

• Ian Meckiff • review
• Wally Hammond • review

Featured list

• List of Somerset CCC players by number of appearances • review
• List of international cricket centuries by Brian Lara • review

Good article

• Cameron White

Updated version of list: I've added Rhodes and Hammond.

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

...and another cricketer and a cricket club up for deletion...

Here's the link to the cricket deletions forum: [8]. Johnlp (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Somerset CCC players by number of appearances

Can someone comment at the Featured list candidacy of this list, specifically regarding the list's name? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

ICC Categories rename discussion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_23#ICC --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basanta Regmi

Hi,

Could people take a look as this Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basanta Regmi.

It looks like we could be heading for a stalemate, and some more eyes from here would be good. A decision either way could set precedence for a few changes to WP:CRIN... —MDCollins (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Would he meet WP:ATH by playing at the highest level of amateur competition? It seems as legitimate an explanation as suggesting competing internationally is sufficient for notability.Hack (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he seems to meet WP:CRIN

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

He's played ten Twenty20 internationals and there isn't any form of qualification in WP:CRIN about which matches are considered Twenty20 internationals...

Further to that, the explanation of major cricket copied above doesn't seem to discriminate between limited overs international matches and One Day International matches (currently defined by the ICC as the ten Test countries and several other countries).Hack (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Croatian Cricket Federation

The last red link in the ICC affiliate member template has been taken care of: Croatian Cricket Federation. -WarthogDemon 05:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sachin Tendulkar

I suspect some eyes may be needed. The new accounts adding fanpraise and calling him "Sachin". UGH, makes me shudder. It's like streaking your hands down a chalkboard. I'm sure a purist! :D SGGH ^ping! 13:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, they haven't bothered to edit the other gernal parts of hte article, else there would be POV everywhere. It's also on the main page at the moment, in the pictured news slot YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding IPL to WP:ITNR

I have restarted the discussion to add IPL to WP:ITNR. Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Cricket:_IPL. --GPPande 09:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo for Richard_Ellison_(cricketer)

If anyone can find a suitable one, I'd be most grateful. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

More about photos

In the Wilfred Rhodes article, there are 2 photos of Rhodes which are almost certainly from before 1923. Does anyone have any evidence that they were in a publication before 1923? Also, does anyone know of any good photos which would be free to use of Wally Hammond, Douglas Jardine, Len Hutton or any other pre-war English cricketers? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Does Frith's bodyline autopsy have photos of Hammond and Jardine, as pre-46 photos taken in Oz will work. There may a team portrait in some history book of the MCC touring party, hopefully it was taken in Aus and not before hopping on a boat. In military career of Keith Miller there is a pic of Miller knocking Hutton's off stump out, which was supposedly put in PD by the Australian Defence Force, according to their website anyway YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 23:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The photos in bodyline autopsy are not great quality and would not scan very well. However, you reminded me of the 32-33 team photo which I may be able to get hold of in good quality. There may be a few others too for other tours. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dubious notability

I thought we could dump relevant BLPs we find here for people to give their views on --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Trevin Bastiampillai

Trevin Bastiampillai No World Cup appearances at senior level. Do his two other ICC level international appearances count? --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

CA profile has 8 FC and 5 ODI appearances for Canada listed. As does CricInfo. Passes notability for me. SGGH ^ping! 12:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Splendid, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Goudie

? --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

CA profile has him playing ODIs and fc matches. Johnlp (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tyvm! --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yw. Johnlp (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Keon Peters

? --Dweller (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

CA profile has a lot of fc matches. Johnlp (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And again. --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Johnlp (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Ramdeen

? --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Only U19 appearances. Prod. Harrias (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Karaitiana

? --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Has played List A cricket, keep. Harrias (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yuko Sasaki

? --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Has played Women's ODIs, keep. Harrias (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sergio Fedee

? --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Has played first-class cricket, keep. Harrias (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Grant Mokoena

? --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

13 f-c appearances and 12 List A, says Cricketarchive. Johnlp (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Marc Ellison

? --I PRODded him but an NZ editor responded by saying he may qualify under WP:GNG. Johnlp (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe he fails WP:CRIN (I checked, but U-19 captains with no FC or LA aren't notable?) and I don't think being a freelance writer for CricInfo alone qualifies you under WP:N and I don't think there is anything else. SGGH ^ping! 09:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

His CA, NZ U-19 ODIs. SGGH ^ping! 09:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

These are the reasons I prodded him. But maybe GNG overrides such things? I've not come across this before. Johnlp (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether he is. He hasn't done anything notable IMO. Lots of people write for CricInfo without being notable. SGGH ^ping! 11:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Another one to take onto AfD and see what happens I think. Harrias (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Taken it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Ellison SGGH ^ping! 12:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Limited Overs Matches/doc

I would welcome some help with the documentation for this template. I have updated the usage guidelines for the template to reflect common usage (at least as I have experienced it), but some anonymous editors have been reverting me, saying there is no consensus for my changes. My response would be that common usage dictates consensus better than any discussion on a talk page could, and therefore I would request that editors here try to enforce the changes I have made to the template documentation. Furthermore, I have added a parameter to the template, allowing for the result of the coin-toss to be added without needing to use the "rain" parameter. This, too, is now reflected in the documentation. – PeeJay 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I could definitely do with some backup here. These anonymous editors keep coming out of nowhere just to revert me, despite never having edited a thing before in their lives. – PeeJay 22:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with what you've done, it all seems valid to me (the players initials etc); I'd like to see some text saying what/who goes in the runs/wickets fields, as without seeing it "in action" it may not be clear that it is the highest run-scorer/wicket taker (maybe that is obvious). That said, if editors choose not to implement the template in exactly the same way, it's not a big problem. You haven't said "this is the exact format", you've just given the common format. We can't strictly enforce everything! There's a couple of things in the Template:Infobox cricketer biography that people don't use in "exactly" the way I would, but we're not enforcing everything. One thing though, I would say "x won the toss and decided to field" rather than "field first" to reflect the common usage in scorecards/the media.—MDCollins (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just had/having a minor edit war with an IP editor regarding initials on the scorecards (at England cricket team against Pakistan in UAE in 2009–10). It got me thinking; why use the initials, when the names are probably more informative? I do it only because it seems to be the standard format, as shown in this template too. But I know a lot of the editors on the India scorecards (and maybe Australia ones too) tend to use full names throughout. Wouldn't this possibly be more informative to a non-expert than initials, especially in cases such as IJ Trott being Jonathan Trott etc. Harrias (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought we did it because that's the way that cricket statistics have been recorded since time immemoriam. Cricinfo records them with initials, and I think CricketArchive does too, so if the two biggest cricket stat websites on the internet record stats that way, I reckon it seems appropriate to do the same here. After all, all the names are linked to the correct player article. – PeeJay 13:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As PeeJay pointed out, that's how it's been done by statisticians for years (since Amateur/Pro type matches); I guess this has partly stemmed from space saving issues, while not a problem on this template, it might be elsewhere. I think its the muslim players (Pakistan in particular?) where the full name is used, as it isn't in their culture to use the initials etc.—MDCollins (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sachin on WP:ITN

I see he's in the news, but I'm not sure about that Easter Egg link on double century. Going to a list of his centuries isn't a fantastic way to explain what a double ton is to the [many] readers ignorant of cricket. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wisden 100

Can someone take a look at this? A lot of fans keep changing stuff and I apparently protected the wrong version (fixed that complaint), but I can't seem to find the "official" list online. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know how this edit made it under the radar! Jeez. I'll give the IP some strongly worded advice. SGGH ^ping! 09:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the article is unwatched so it gets a lot of fanboy participation, one particular IP has been countering the SRT fans (likely the same IP as the one that presented the inflammatory edit summary above), but given that hardly any regular editors have worked on this, it isn't a surprise that such edits get by unnoticed. These IPs are all dynamic, so no amount of advice is going to be helpful, that's why the article is semi-protected. I think a factual accuracy tag might be appropriate until someone can get their hands on the official lists and trim down the junk from the article. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we find a source that categorises bowling speeds consistently without political correctness and delusion

Is there a better source than CI that isn't politically correct and measures the bowling speeds factually, not delusionally

• I Pathan/ Munaf Patel "medium fast" often bowls low 120s
• Joginder Sharma avg ~ 120 kph in the T20 WC in 2007 "fast medium"
• James Hopes avg ~ 130 "medium"
• Symonds, M/S Waugh etc, ~ 120-125 "medium"

Statistically quantifiable data should be done in a more factual way.... YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the short answer is "no". Apart from in recent international matches, there's been little measuring of bowlers' speeds, and even when speeds have been measured doubts have sometimes been expressed about whether the measuring device has been cailbrated correctly. So I think that there's inevitably going to be a strong subjective element in how bowlers are categorised. It's not helped by somes sources using RFM and RMF as synonyms, some defining RFM as the faster of the two categories, and some defining RMF as the faster. JH (talk page) 10:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Marc Ellison is at AfD

Following the discussion above. Consensus needed! SGGH ^ping! 12:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

List of COUNTRY cricketers

This has probably been asked many times, but just for clarification, is "List of COUNTRY cricketers" for players who have played for that national team, or who play in teams that are in that country, or for players who were born in that country and play cricket anywhere? SGGH ^ping! 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

England/India/Australia etc = Players who have played for the national team(s)

English/Indian/Australian etc = Players who play in the respective country for national/subnational teams. (This is where there's differing opinions, does Kevin Pietersen belong in South African cricketers?)

Last discussion on this topic had no resolution. —SpacemanSpiff 19:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What about Category:New Zealand cricketers? SGGH ^ping! 19:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP Progress

Date	Unreferenced BLPs	% done
24 Jan	355	0%
31 Jan	301	15%
7 Feb	281	21%
14 Feb	242	32%
21 Feb	221	38%
28 Feb	147	59%

Good week this one, hopefully shouldn't take too much longer to get them all done! Harrias (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

CMJ's top 100 cricketers of all time

Has anyone else seen this rankings book? It was done in 2009. I have to say I was very surprised that he put Jaywardene at 80 above Pollock and Donald, and Jayasuriya and Pietersen in the 60s, Harvey at 87 below Jayawardene, and Graeme Smith at 90; He seems to have totally forgotten about Davidson, who isn't in the 100 at all while Benaud, Lindwall, Kapil are all in there from 30-50. Hassett and Morris weren't there at all; it all seems a bit odd. Macartney was #100, and Merchant and V Mankad are right at the bottom of the 90s and Hazare doesn't a get look in, below Chandra and Bedi. Flintoff is in the 70s ahead of Davidson, and May at #42 way ahead of many similar batsmen of his time. Dexter in there in the 70s. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've not seen the book. Does he explain his criteria - eg is it based on what he personally saw? --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• 1-10) Bradman, Grace, Sobers, Warne, Hobbs, Richards, Sydney Barnes, Hammond, Tendulkar, Gilchrist
• 11-20) Malcolm Marshall, McGrath, Murali, Imran, Rhodes, Miller , Hutton, Botham, Lillee, Headley
• 21-30) Compton, Trueman, O'Reilly, Lara, Hadlee, Gavaskar, Spofforth, Richards, Bedser, Trumper
• 31-40) Lindwall, Weekes, Laker, Wasim, Ranji, Waqar, G Pollock, G Chappell, Worrell, Woolley
• 41-50) Benaud, PBH May, Sutcliffe, Gooch, Walcott, Barrington, Ponting, Kapil, Larwood, Lohmann
• 51-60) Ambrose, Kallis, Boycott, Grimmett, Border, Constantine, Javed Miandad, Sangakkara, Verity, Pietersen
• 61-70) Shrewsbury, Bedi, S Waugh, Les Ames, McCabe, J Snow, Jayasuriya, W Armstrong, Knott, Gower
• 71-80) J Gregory, C Lloyd, Donnelly, Dravid, Dexter, A Flower, Tate, Cowdrey, Jayawardene, CB Fry
• 81-90) Ponsford, Flintoff, A Donald, Jessop, Zaheer Abbas, Holding, N Harvey, Abdul Qadir, Statham, L Gibbs
• 91-100) Healy, C Walsh, Graeme Smith, Bhagwat Chandrasekhar, CTB Terror Turner, V Merchant, S Pollock, Greenidge, V Mankad, Macartney

I haven't read the book yet, just looked at the cover and nearly fell over; I wonder how Gooch got to 44 ahead of Ponting and Border and a few other 1980s players, but it can't be those he saw, as Grace and a few other pre-WWII guys were on there YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually think the most controversial thing he's done is include Gilly in the top 10 of all time. I'd rate him highly, but not that highly. I could possibly agree to him being the best keeper-batsman of all time, but look at the immortals he's surpassed in the next couple of rows. Then again, being controversial sells books. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not great.. Rhodes is also too high. —Aaroncrick (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Ellison (cricketer)

Btw, there's a major expansion of this article under way. (See how it looked in Jan) If you have a few minutes spare and would like to help, you're more than welcome to do so! --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, long repressed memories from my childhood resurfacing :) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ICC President-elect

Does this WikiProject want to assume responsibility for yet another vandal-magnet article? [9] -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If he's a candidate, he has to get the other countries to vote for him doesn't he? The ABC article seems to contradict each other, unless candidacy means each bloc gets to take turns and so their "nom"="guaranteed success" YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they take turns. He takes over in 2012 and is vice beforehand. —Aaroncrick (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Eyes needed for POV on Tendulkar

A selective POV section called "Praise" may be coming in and out of the article, coupled with sensationalist and undue weight comments that SRT >> Bradman, will be making appearances YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Been there a while. —Aaroncrick (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. And it hasn't come back yet YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:U-19 cricket teams

I think this Cat should be renamed "Under 19", and all the articles should be renamed too.

Before I go running to CfD I thought I'd post here in case there's a good reason for the lack of clarity. --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree in principle, although I would say Under-19, not Under 19. Harrias (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody recognise this current NSW player or coach?

There were only 13 players named in the NSW squad for the match against SA, but there were the named 13, who all are accounted for in photos, Aaron Bird and this guy. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nadeem Abbasi

Hi all. I just changed one birthdate (that of Asif Mahmood (diff) in light of the fact that both Cricinfo and Cricket Archive agreed as to the date of birth, which went against what it said on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the birthdate of Nadeem Abbasi (CA; Cricinfo) differ by as much as four years.

In these days of BLP security, what is the best solution? Are Cricket Archive more trusted in these cases, or Cricinfo? When I corrected the birthdate, nearly 18 months ago, I was unaware that there were two separate birthdates in two places. But like I say, policies on individuals' protection are of great importance these days. Bobo. 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not the only case, there are quite a few that I've come across, especially on the women's side: Jhulan Goswami (1 year); Sirupa Bose (name is different). I have used CI for biographical info in the past, only reason for that being that it's a "larger" organization. —SpacemanSpiff 17:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply SpacemanSpiff. I will leave the birthdates as they are for now (with that said, I've barely even read Wikipedia in the last month, so jumping in on anything would be silly). Although, I will continue searching for discrepancies and I might point them out here if I see any possible harm that might come of said inconsistencies. Bobo. 17:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Where CA and CI differ, I would be inclibed to go with CA, as it's my impression that it's more reliable. It's also run by two very well-respected cricket statisticians. Of course, that doesn't guarantee that it will be correct in every case. JH (talk page) 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I use CA for all statistical info when there's a discrepancy. CA for stats, CI for biographical has been my approach so far.—SpacemanSpiff 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was looking on dob as being a stat, but I see where you're coming from. JH (talk page) 19:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Performance graphs

Many international batsmen have the performance graphs. Is there a reason why there is no bowling equivalent? This came up at a peer review for Wilfred Rhodes; for someone who is an all-rounder, it looks a bit odd. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There are.. I think Shaun Pollock has one such example. But the guy who did them isn't on site anymore I don't think.. Harrias (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pollock's chart is very difficult to read. Part of the problem is that bowling graphs of average are unintuitive to a general reader - a good bowler has a low average. You'd have to turn the graph upside down to make it comprehensible. A better idea is to use their world rating - I think some of the Invincibles have this approach - try Bill O'Reilly (cricketer). --Dweller (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

KP

Hi,

Is KP British of SA descent or South African of British descent or both? this edit drew my attention to it; he's in both categories. Technically he is born, in SA, to one of each parent...

—MDCollins (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

South African born England cricketer I would have said. SGGH ^ping! 11:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Shane Warne

I'm wondering if Shane Warne requires more expansion on his domestic first-class career, which is quite sketchy but nonetheless worthy of more mention. Also as per the discussion above regarding graphs is there anyone with the know how to make a career bowling graph for the article? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP Progress 07/03

Date	Unreferenced BLPs	% done
24 Jan	355	0%
31 Jan	301	15%
7 Feb	281	21%
14 Feb	242	32%
21 Feb	221	38%
28 Feb	147	59%
7 Mar	124	65%

Quiet week on this mostly, but we're still, mostly due to Johnlp getting through them. Harrias (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick word to say well done on doing this. May I be ignorant enough to request an easy link to discover the unsourced cricket BLPs so that when I get a few spare moments I can join in on the drive? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Unreferenced_BLPs. Johnlp (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Credit where it's due: a quick glance indicates that Harrias is responsible for a large proportion of the work. Being a bunch of stats lovers, I have no doubt that before long, someone will construct a chart of who's done what, lol. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

County Cricket Ground, Taunton

I'm about to start a major revamp of this article, but the first thing that struck me is the name. While technically an accurate description of the ground, it doesn't reflect the actual name of the ground. Cricinfo, CricketArchive, and Somerset County Cricket Club all refer to the ground as the County Ground. I propose moving the article to County Ground, Taunton or County Ground (Taunton), to properly reflect its name. I believe there are similar issues with County Grounds across the country though, so I wondered if there was some guideline I was missing. Harrias (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support such a move, it is always referred to as the county ground around here. I can probably arrange for some good photos to be taken of it if you so wish. I know where I can get a top-flight camera. SGGH ^ping! 13:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Good photos sounds great. Although with the work on the Colin Atkinson Pavilion, there possibly isn't much scope for it to be done for a while. The place looked horrendous when I swung by to pick up my membership! I'm looking to invest in a new snazzy camera in the next couple of months, and should have that for most of the cricket season, so if you can't arrange it, don't worry too much. I'm not much of a photographer, but if I take enough photos, there's got to be at least one decent one! Harrias (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed --Dweller (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

that's true, it is still a mess. SGGH ^ping! 14:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved the article, and fixed most of the links to direct straight to the new page. Harrias (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

West Indies Cricket Flag

I have noticed the absence of the flag of the west indies on numerous pages. I read somewhere (can't remember where) that it is a copyright issue and that the flag can't be used. I would like to bring up the case of the Ireland Rugby Union team which represents both Ireland and Northern Ireland; the wikipedia template references a different flag to the respective national flags. I was wondering if this means anything in this case and whether anything can be done to rectify the case of the missing flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevstarrunner (talk • contribs) 07:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

MCC Cricketers

You may not be aware that an American has put this category up for discussion - [10] Regards Motmit (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a lost battle. All "ODI" cricketer categories were named to "One Day International cricketer" cats (e.g. it's now Category:New Zealand One Day International cricketers), ICC cats have been renamed (e.g. Category:International Cricket Council Hall of Fame inductees) and so on. —SpacemanSpiff 16:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, all this expansion of acronyms "per the main article" is getting out of hand. I don't think that's a valid rationale. Is there a place to bring this idea as a whole up for debate? SGGH ^ping! 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Probaby someplace on the Village Pump. Any time I participate at a CfD I feel like it's an alternate plane of Wikipedia. The bigger problem is unlike AfDs, the projects are never informed about these discussions. Also, unlike articles, categories aren't on watchlists and almost always we find out about this post-facto. —SpacemanSpiff 21:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD is broken beyond repair and nothing except a total overhaul of the category policies and procedures will fix it. The CfD process has been captured by a group of like-minded editors who have written the policy and run the enforcement program and who take little note of those editors who actually have to work with the categories they mangle. They give no consideration to the idea that category names that may appear ambiguous in theory are actually quite intelligible in practice, given some context such as the wider category tree that they sit for example.

I think that the CfD clique genuinely think they can do the impossible - i.e. remove all ambiguity from category names - but even if this was possible, they give no consideration to other concepts important in a good naming policy, including conciseness and simplicity, and seemingly have no concept of "common sense". The basic idea driving their program is that if a category name can possibly be confused by some editor, somewhere - then no matter how small that risk of confusion is, the category must be renamed regardless of the ridiculousness of the category name that results. One of my favourites in Category:Football (soccer) in Victoria (Australia)!!

This will not change, ever. My advice is not to get hung up on categories and just accept that they are broken and next to useless. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My favorite is Category:AIADMK politicians which was renamed to Category:All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam politicians without a redirect from the former when most published sources use the acronym to identify the respective politicians! I only knew of the discussion because I created the cat and it was on my watchlist, no notification to either me or the India project. —SpacemanSpiff 03:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not optimistic because the CFD regulars just overrule/ignore people who are contrary to their ideology anyway, so YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 23:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone support a motion at VP to curtail such changes? We could prepare it here. SGGH ^ping! 10:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support it. Koavf (talk · contribs) appears to be the worst culprit on the 6th March log (and has been warned for flooding CfD before). A couple of surprising suggested renames include one about MIT and half a dozen MMORPGs, neither acronym needs expanding as they're both well known. The process seems to be lacking in common sense, and I doubt it will change, but it's worth a try. Nev1 (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of the debate over Category:Victoria cricketers a while back. I think my (joke) suggestion to the CFD mob was to rename it to "Victoria (Australia (country)) cricket (sport (activity)) team cricket (sport (activity)) players", just to remove all possible ambiguity from the category name. So perhaps this time I should suggest to them the following: "Marylebone (Area of London (England)) Cricket (sport (activity)) Club (Sport (activity)) cricket (sport (activity)) players". I'm sure that will do for them. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A link posted by the editor who started this thread brought me here, and ... well, I hope y'all had fun sounding off.

But if it's not too much of a distraction from the venting, some of the participants in this thread might like to idea to actually look at the CFD discussion which started this thread: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 6#Category:MCC_cricketers: no support whatsoever for the proposed renaming.

Pity when the facts get in the way of a good rant, isn't it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I confess that I don't understand your point. It still got proposed along with many others that I would deem unnecessary. SGGH ^ping! 23:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I agree with SGGH, I really don't understand the above comment. This is one example where there's some opposition, the ODI category changes were just as bad (and executed) and we now have mouthfuls like Category:New Zealand women One Day International cricketers when there was clearly no ambiguity in the earlier name of Category:New Zealand women ODI cricketers. —SpacemanSpiff 23:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  "Some opposition"???? That's a mighty odd way of describing the reality of unanimous opposition in sufficient quantity to make a WP:SNOW closure the legitimate next step.

  There is often a balance to be struck in category names between the brevity of acronyms on one hand, and the possibility of ambiguity or obscurity on the other. Too many acronyms, and the category list on an article turns into a form of alphabet soup incomprehensible to anyone who is not already very knowledgeable on the topic ... and that's unacceptable, because while wikipedia articles are written and maintained by editors who have at least some degree of expertise in the subject (and often a lot of expertise), it is written for a general audience who may know nothing about the context of the article in front of them. OTOH, with too many acronyms expanded, the category list becomes a wall of text, too verbose for the quick scanning needed in navigation, and the category titles become non-obvious.

  It would be astonishing if any process always reached the right answers on those questions; they usually proceed by veering betweens the two edges of the road, sometimes straying too far in one direction, sometimes too far in the other, but errors are eventually corrected. In this case, I thoroughly agree that there have been far too many acronym-expansion CFD nominations in the last few weeks, and some have probably passed by default with inadequate scrutiny.

  Hopefully that flow can be stemmed a bit, but I have suggestion for those annoyed at what's happened. No, not a suggestion, a request: please, don't just sound off from a distance. Go to the CFD discussions, and take part. Sate your view where it counts in forming a consensus, and you've a better chance of seeing decisions you like. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  How are the CfD regulars planning to stop this sort of reaction of "what are THEY doing to our cats"? Why isn't there more transparency and notification of the relevant WikiProjects? Sometimes it might not be clear as to what project(s) are involved, but some are obvious. Like others have said, as few of us have cats on our watchlists, we generally only find out when our watchlists explode with bot driven edits after the decision has been made by the CfD regulars. The rest of us don't want to have to trawl through weeks of unrelated CfDs to find one that's of interest to us.The-Pope (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  There is nothing secret about CFD: categories are tagged and listed openly, nor is there any constraint on who can participate in CfD. As with other processes such as WP:TFD there is a two-way responsibility here: those making a nomination should make notifications, but WikiProjects also need to be more pro-active in tracking such discussions. There are tools such as Wikipedia:Article alerts which help greatly, but even without that, there are usually only about 200 to 300 CFD discussions per week. It's not a huge task for one member of a WikiProject to scan the list twice a week and notify the WikiProject, as Motmit did here.

  Those of us who regularly participate in CfD discussions frequently bemoan the lack of participation, but the problem is not easily solved. At dozens of CfD discussions over the last few months, I have listed the categories at WP:DELSORT and notified the relevant Wikiproject, only to find precisely zero response from anyone other than regular CfD participants, and many other editors report the same lack of interest. My own experience is, sadly, that only in a small minority of cases does a CfD notice to a WikiProject generate any response at all ... so in the case of nominations which appear likely to be uncontroversial, I don't bother. Notifications are frequently a time-consuming process, because most categories sadly do not have a WikiProject banner on their talk page, and it can be quite a search to find what the relevant project is. Doing that and repeatedly getting no response is not a productive exercise.

  I suggest several steps to improve the scrutiny of categories:

  1. WikiProjects should be more pro-active in monitoring categories. Some projects are great at this (e.g. WP:LONDON), but others appear to show no interest at all, and most pay very little attention. The first step is to add their project banners to the categories within their scope (I did a big run of such tagging for WikiProject Ireland a few years ago), which allows the use of article alerts, but effective monitoring requires a lot of watchlisting. It's not just a question of categories being renamed or merged: they can be re-parented or emptied or populated with inappropriate articles, and that needs watching too.
     (BTW, I notice that this project appears to use {{CricketWatch}} on categories, rather than {{WP Cricket}}; a bot could easily change that if requested, but from my brief reading of the article alerts documentation I think that unless it is altered Article Alerts won't pick up changes to categories within this project's scope.)
  2. Uninvolved editors to take on the task of systematic notification through WP:DELSORT, as already happens at AFD. This isn't an either-or choice against nominator-notification: we need a both-and solution. Anyone can nominate an article or category for deletion, but the notification processes are neither lightweight nor obvious to everyone.
  3. Less bad-mouthing of those who do work hard to try to maintain the category system, and more participation; rather than just sniping, try to build WP:CONSENSUS to help solve problems. The sort of sounding-off seen in this thread does noting to foster collaboration, and poisons the atmosphere unnecessarily. Please try to assume that those who regularly participate in CFd are acting in good faith, and please try to consider the possibility that those who routinely look at the category system as a whole may bring a valuable extra perspective to discussions. (One example of this is abbreviations: some which may appear obvious and primary to those immersed in a topic may be obscure and/or ambiguous to those unfamiliar with it. Another frequent source of tension is standardising the format of category names and the structure of category trees, a process which makes life much easier for readers and for editors, but which can be uncomfortable for those who have helped build an existing category structure)

  Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  I think there's been long term concerns about CfD and how it appears to operate like a clique of like-minded people from the UK and North America - my experience in 2008 was that a common sense outcome could only be obtained by engaging in open warfare with the clique and notifying as many people as possible of discussions. It would take days to win a discussion (often either found purely accidentally, or after the fact necessitating a DRV) in the name of common sense against the mythical beast of "standardization" (note the US spelling), and it was a rare win with much blood on the walls. Basically, any time one got regular Wikipedians in there, they were automatically accused of bad faith and subjected to sneering sarcasm and patronising comments in the hope they'd leave - most of them did after whichever particular CfD was in question, so it was conduct which probably met its purpose. Thankfully, I'm seeing a lot less of it now, mainly as I'm not seeing so much of the individuals who made it such a toxic atmosphere - with only the odd skirmish (cf. the recent PanchoS affair, much of which still has to be sorted out). FTR I have never had any problems with BHG - her votes are well-reasoned and the only consistent standardisation I've seen her embark on has made perfect sense (e.g. 20th/21st century rap stars, getting rid of meaningless political descriptors, etc) Orderinchaos 19:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to investigate these options and bring about a helpful resolution, but I don't find your assumption of bad faith to help clear any atmosphere, we aren't "sounding-off". But I know what you mean. SGGH ^ping! 13:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming bad faith, I was noting what written: "CfD clique ... give no consideration" etc.

I'm happy to try to reach solutions, but if the abuse continues, I'll go and do something else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

These's no abuse here my friend, I'm simply checking that you realise it's certainly not my intention to criticise unfairly the CfD system. :) SGGH ^ping! 15:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

break

In the mean time, I have added CfD to my watchlist, and I will try to make the project aware of each cricket related change that occurs. SGGH ^ping! 16:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As a means of fixing what has already gone, is it worth putting some of the stranger recent changes in the cricket arena to a DRV? I do not see a *single* informed vote on the ODI cricketers one, and the lone comment in opposition (by Mattinbgn) was not answered or addressed by the nominator or any of the mostly !vote supporters. Orderinchaos 19:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me my ignorance, and this is kind of ironic, but DRV? Could you disambiguate that possibly? Harrias (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRV —SpacemanSpiff 20:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to User:BrownHairedGirl for fixing one of the problems I mentioned above. I also echo Orderinchaos's comment on fixing the ODI mess. —SpacemanSpiff 19:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remember that the first step towards DRV is to try resolving the issue in discussion with the CFD closer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - in reading the matter I hadn't realised you were the closer. Given the obvious strong disagreement with the ODI matter on this board, the !vote nature without consideration of most of the supports on the ODI matter in the DRV, and the lack of attempt by anyone to address the concern raised by Mattinbgn there, would you be willing to consider setting aside your original close in view of WP:NOTAVOTE - i.e. acknowledge that consensus basically failed to materialise? Orderinchaos 20:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User:BrownHairedGirl, Since you were the closer and are already discussing the topic here, could we continue and discuss the specific CfD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_16#ODI_cricketers?

For a start I'd like to know why this is even necessary and would like an expansion of this "per nom and consensus" rationale. (The earlier CfD that's cited: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4#ODI_cricketers came to (most of our) attention post-facto, so there was no participation. And no one really responded to Mattinbgn's question on this one either. I find it difficult to believe that someone would mistake "FOO ODI cricketer" for "FOO Oracle Data Integrator cricketer" or "FOO Overseas Development Institute cricketer". All this action has done is to increase the size of the category bar in articles. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a quote in support, from WP:CON: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner." This assumes that they make any effort to work together at all - when they are completely ignored and no reasons are provided for a decision, then that is not consensus and we might as well just have bots do the voting (indeed, comparing the recent votes of some of the participants to these ones 3 months ago finds them even using the same wording). Orderinchaos 21:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my comments below referencing the discussion in WT:CRICKET at the time, it seems to me that the problem here is more like the reverse: that project members who were aware of the CFD discussion chose to ignore it, by neither making their own contributions at CFD nor flagging it up more prominently for other project members (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 66#Ozzie_selectors and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 66#CfD).

I think it is unfortunate that several editors have made rather strident denunciations of the CFD process without doing a little more checking on what actually happened at the time. It would be nice gesture of good faith if some of the editors who made rather strong condemnations of the process would consider striking some of what has been said. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, I've sat back and watched this without getting too involved before commenting. However, I do have a few points and observations.

• Firstly, as per my opposition at the CfD, I think MCC is fine and no expansion is needed. The acronym expansions do seem to be getting a bit silly over there, but I have every belief it is being done in good faith.
• Secondly, I want to thank BrownHairedGirl for her explanations and comments here, they have been an interesting insight for me. Despite a pretty rough reception here (I would like to think that we could try and be a bit more welcoming of guests to our WP) she has persevered with her efforts to explain the situation(s).
• Thirdly, I don't really see the problem with the expansion of ODI. Yes, it may be slightly irritating, and to us cricket nuts seem unnecessary, but unlike the MCC, which is predominately referred to as such, either ODI or One Day International is used frequently, and if it makes it slightly clearer to one editor what it means, then it's probably a worth-while change. Regardless, we had our chance to make further comment on it at the time, and other than moan here, most of us did very little. So let's not make snide comments about those that implemented the change, let's either accept it, or try and reverse it in a civil and proper manner. Harrias (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Harrias makes some good points. We're usually pretty gentlemanly in our enthusiasms for cricket and Wikipedia and I think we've gone a little OTT on our criticism on this occasion and in some prior criticisms of CfD... myself included. That said, there's some potential learning points from this and I've posted to Brown Haired Girl's user talk. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Harrias & Dweller, for your thoughtful comments.

Let's leave the heat behind; I think it has all been useful in the end, and I hope that all involved have learnt from it. I certainly have!

On the specific point of the ODI player categories, I'd be happy to help anyone who wants to open a new CFD for the ODI categories (if I'm not away, and I plan a break soon) ... but since there seems to be a range of views here from "terrible" through "undesirable" and "neutral" to "probably not a bad idea", it might be a good idea to have a little preliminary discussion here to clarify the issues. Whether or not this project reaches any consensus of its own, that discussion (preferably in its own new section to facilitate linking to it) would form useful background to a fresh CFD discussion.

On the wider points raised, I think that there is firstly a notification/communication problem in all directions. I really commend Article Alerts as one step (see it in use at WP:UKPOLITICS), but I hope that we can keep on working together on ways to improve communications from all angles, and I'm going to reply on my talk to Dweller's suggestions there.

The second wider problem relates to the nature of CFD. Most editors seem to be primarily interested either in content or in wikipolitics, or some combination of both ... but categories are an odd-ball, pages which most editors rarely edit and pay little attention to, but where changes do hit lots of watchlists. Categories a form of metadata (one of WP's structural weaknesses) which raises a bundle of dry technical issues that don't pop up so much in other areas of WP. That tends to be off-putting to anyone who ventures in there, which creates a vicious circle: the fewer non-regular participants at CFD, the more discussions lapse into terse jargon and acronym soup, and the more off-putting they become to the uninitiated. This has been discussed on many occasions at WT:CFD (often after a heated misunderstanding like this one), and so far there are no obvious solutions. If anyone here has some time, check through the archives at WT:CFD, and please share any further thoughts there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ODI cricketers closure

OK, here goes. As you noticed, I closed the Dec 16 CFD.

When closing a discussion, I try to weigh consensus by doing two things: a) looking for policy- and guideline-based arguments and precedents, and b) looking to see how well those arguments were supported by editors in the discussion. It's not an exact science, but in most cases all these things line up, so no balancing is required. (Precedents are of course not binding, but in categories they are very significant, because if similar categories have different naming conventions, it is made harder for editors to add the categories and for readers to find and interpret them. There is a long-standing convention that there needs to be a very pressing reason to adopt a naming structure which breaks consistency: exceptions include WP:ENGVAR and neutrality issues such as having Category:People from Northern Ireland rather the std format, but non-neutral, Category:Northern Irish people).

In this case, we had:

1. A previous decision (at CFD Dec 4) to rename two ODI cricketer categories by expanding the acronym. That was a poor nomination in some ways, because it selected two out of many possible categories, but considering the number of similar categories, it was probably best to start with a small sample. It would have been better to have started with the parent category, but still it was a start ... albeit a tentative one, and one which at that point could logically have been reversed.
2. An implicit rationale of expanding an acronym (the reason for the Dec 4 renaming, linked to by the nominator)
3. Six editors supporting the nomination, including two explicitly stated the the expand-acronym rationale
4. One editor expressing concern about "women"/"women's", a concern which seemed to have been addressed
5. One editor Mattinbgn, nothing that while "ODI" might be ambiguous, "ODI cricketers was not"

So apart from Mattingbn's concerns, this was a reasonably straightforward followup renaming, one which didn't just say "as before", but where several contributors expressly supported the renaming because of a long-established principle. The question was whether Mattingbn's concerns were serious enough to override the arguments of other editors.

The first point was that Mattingbn did not label his contribution as "oppose" the renaming, just made a "comment". The distinction is important: I read that choice of "comment" rather than "oppose" (or "keep") as an indication that the contributor is asking a question or expressing a reservation, but not explicitly asking other editors to refrain.

Sometimes a "comment" does include a powerful argument for or against a nomination, but in this case I didn't see one. Mattingbn was probably right that "ODI cricketers" is not ambiguous, but a further problem with acronym is that most of them are obscure: a reader can find out what they mean only by opening up the category, and even then in many cases there is nothing in the category to explain the acronym. Crucially, Mattingbn did not suggest that "ODI" had become the official or generally used name per WP:NCCAT#General_naming_conventions.

So in summary there was:

1. An inadequately-explained rationale (it should have been restated up-front) which was nonetheless founded in guidelines
2. A recent similar discussion which had reached the same conclusion
3. No opposes
4. One comment which did not prompt the editor to oppose the renaming, and which did not address the guideline's reason for expanding abbreviation

That seemed to me to be a near-unanimous decision, with no policy-or-guideline-based concerns. In an ideal world there would have been more discussion of Mattingbn's question, but since no editor shared those concerns and Mattingbn didn't oppose, I saw no point in relisting. As such I decided that it was a clearcut close as "rename per nominator", and sufficiently clear that it didn't need an explanation.

If I was closing that discussion now, I would have added a further factor: the lack of any evident WikiProject notification, which i have to place a higher priority on. However, in that case, I would have checked WT:CRICKET, and found the discussion now archived at at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 66#Ozzie_selectors: one editor posts the link, another says "good call", and the only other comment says "I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other". So had I looked, I would have concluded that a) WP:CRICKET knew of the discussion, and b) it was non-controversial.

So it's a bit odd to now find that SpacemanSpiff, who noted in December "I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other" and didn't bother to comment at the CFd now expresses a whole range of concerns, and says "there was no participation". It's quite reasonable to change one's mind, but if someone makes an explicit decision at the time not to participate then it's very unreasonable for that person to later denounce the decision-making process as unfair and the result as terrible. (Dweller makes a good point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 66#CfD).

So where does that leave us? Simple: AFAICS, a decision was made properly, with an imperfect but adequate consensus, and adequate awareness of the WikiProject. I have no intention of overturning it or setting it aside, and although I'd be surprised if this closure was overturned, any editor is entitled to open a DRV if they are not happy with the response of the closing admin.

FWIW my suggestion is that a DRV is probably not a useful step, because the best outcome you could reasonably hope for would be a relisting, and that'd leave us in much the same situation as a new CFD. Better to note that consensus can change, and after nearly 3 months, it would be probably be acceptable for an editor to open a CFD nomination to rename these categories back to the abbreviated form. In case there are any objections to an early re-opening, please note in the nomination that as closer of the previous CFD, I don't object to re-opening the subject now.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to quote me, I'd suggest you quote the entire statement: "I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but we often use ODI in article titles. Other than that, I just think these inordinately long category names are a bit of a distraction."; unfortunately, I underestimated that "distraction" and realized the impact of it only after the watchlist bombardment. As for not participating, Mattinbgn asked the only question that mattered and there was no reason to repeat it. As for someone reading an article about Sulakshana Naik (one of our weakest stubs) and going to the category without knowing what it is, it's impossible, ODI is linked within the infobox. For most of the cats either the main article or the first one is an "ODI" article and explains what it is. —SpacemanSpiff 00:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have set them out the reasons for the closure in a lengthy explanation, and I can't see that repeating it serves any purpose. I have suggested reopening the question if you want to, but the Dec 16 CFD is long over.

The points you make now could have been made at CFD, but you chose not to do so, and neither you nor anyone else actually posted in the CFD to object to the renaming. I understand that you may regret that decision, but please don't blame the process or others for your choice not to participate in the discussion, or for the discussion not including consideration of things you realised only after the discussion had closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of the above I'd suggest the best course of action is a new CfD, rather than a DRV. (I hadn't actually thought of that option, because the cases I dealt with were all recent closures - as in within a few days - of this type rather than 3 months on.) Orderinchaos 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If editors wants to open a new CFD, I suggest that the best approach is to nominate a few sample categories to test the principle. Listing them all is a lot of work, and if there is consensus to rename the sample, then the a followup group nomination can be done for the rest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan bans players

More chaos ... Might be about time, however. There always seems to a lot of tail wagging the dog in Pakistan cricket. I guess the relevant articles need some updating. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Who captains them now in Test cricket? Their four most likely Test captains have been either banned or fined. Afridi and Razzaq haven't played Tests in many years. Misbah could go from being dropped from the team to being appointed captain! Jevansen (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the four banned players dono't have an ethnic parochial group to riot them out of trouble, unlike Ganguly. The only incumbent players are Butt and Asif, and who wants a druggie as captain... Kaneria not a leader, unless they rehabilitate Afridi, it looks like Misbah or Razzaq. Akmal*2 have been disciplined for inciting a strike, more or less, so well....maybe they bring back Hafeez or Nazir. Looks ridiculous now they only have Butt and Akmal left to bat.... YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)