Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 13

message: Just a note to say I've added List of World XI ODI cricketers to WP:FLC, jguk 18:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World XI ODI cricketers]] 

message: After some substantial rewrite, I've renominated West Indian cricket team on WP:FAC. Any comments would be welcome, jguk 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/West Indian cricket team]] 

message: for WP:Cricket members information, 
	The current Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight is Melbourne Cricket Ground.Every fortnight a different Australia-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked.Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can.
-- Ian ≡ talk 14:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Collaboration of tne fortnight 

message: Someone has put it up for deletion. Tintin 13:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Northern Transvaal v Natal B 1-4 January 1972]] 

message: It appears some robot is going through all the nationality categories and changing them. For example, :Category:Australian cricket is being changed to :Category:Cricket in Australia. This is leading to all sorts of errors coming in - for example - The Invincibles, which is the name given to the 1948 Australian squad to tour England has been recategorised to :Category:Cricket in Australia, whereas, if we are to have "in X" categories, it should be in :Category:Cricket in England. Also, surely :Cricket:Australian cricket is a better category anyway than :Category:Cricket in Australia as it's more useful. After all, The 2005 Ashes can be in :Category:Australian cricket, and it would be sensible to categorise it as such, but :Category:Cricket in Australia is just wrong (as would be all other reports of overseas tours). Should we try to get whoever wrote this bot to reverse its effects? jguk 04:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You beat me to it.  I totally agree - this change is wrong (and I cannot find any reference to it in WP:CFR)  -- Ian ≡ talk 06:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005_October_21#Subcats_of_Category:Sports_by_country. Sam Vimes 07:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I am certain that there was good faith intended in the change, but for the reasons Jguk has outlined, it seems innapropriate in at least these examples.  Can we a) live with the change (would mean changing a few articles) or b) request a new CFR to revert or c) request a revert from the bot owner?  I think c) would fail as a vote has been taken and he's simply complying with the consensus as per the vote. -- Ian ≡ talk 11:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether we can change the CFR decision depends on the number of articles that will become mis-catagorized. I'm happy to change some if they get moved into an inappropriate catagory. Raven4x4x 11:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I made a request to move the article List of cricketers' nicknames to List of nicknames used in cricket.  Please vote at Talk:List of cricketers' nicknames. DaGizza Chat (c) 11:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricketing nicknames page move 

message: Is there a website that attempts player career rankings which includes past players?  From what I can see the above  only produces rankings for current players (although they do mention that past player rankings will be available "over the coming months").
This  ranks innings, but not careers. -- Ian ≡ talk 07:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: had it, but when they swiched to LG ratings, they removed it. Tintin 11:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Found it and answered my own question - at  Cricketarchive. -- Ian ≡ talk 16:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ** Hick is only 53. He was definitely a better first class batsman than many of the people above him. Tintin 16:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I see that there's also a Test batsman table  (in which Hick does not cop a mention) and an Index  -- Ian ≡ talk 12:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[LG ICC cricket ratings]] 

message: Could someone more knowledgeable on cricket than me please have a quick look at unplayable and see whether they think it's salvageable as an article or should be deleted/moved to Wiktionary. Thanks. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling they ought to start Cricktionary... Not Wikipedia-suitable content -- perhaps redirect to List of cricket terms?  Sam Korn 12:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Unsalvageable. I've redirected it per Sam Korn's suggestion. Stephen Turner 12:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unplayable

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket matches articles Stephen Turner 12:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I should issue an apology for writing the things in the first place... Sam Vimes 15:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't apologise for doing good work that benefits Wikipedia (even if people don't appreciate it).  Guettarda 15:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise. Sam, they're notable articles in their own right and once merged, moreso.  Is there anything we, as a group can do to assist in merging these articles (as the vote is likely to be)? I am happy to assist in any way. This will be a big task and many hands make light work as they say, but it will need some co-ordination. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. I think the merging will be simple enough - it's just a matter of turning the transclusion code  into  - which can easily be done in Notepad and I've already started doing that on user subpages (removing the AfD templates takes a bit more time, but I've got a java program which does that in the blink of an eye). So really...I think it's fine. For the moment, anyway - though I wouldn't mind anyone having a look on User:Sam Vimes/Sandbox12 and tell me whether that's preferable to what's currently in Lancashire County Cricket Club in 2005 (well, without the nasty templates) Sam Vimes 16:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the sandbox version -- Ian ≡ talk 16:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprisingly. I suppose that's what I'll aim for, but it takes a while to do that - and you kinda have to know the subject to do it that way. :) Sam Vimes 16:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you're not going to get a chance. User:AllyUnion has taken it upon himself to merge them programmatically without waiting for the end of the AfD discussion. Stephen Turner 11:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh! Means I'll have to reconstruct the tournament pages from scratch, since all they consist of now is a bunch of redirects. Bummer. :( Sam Vimes 14:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked AllyUnion to mend them. Stephen Turner 14:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD again 

message: Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Indian national cricket captains Tintin 20:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An FLRC now 

message: I'm fed up with removing copyright pictures from players' infoboxes. I'm also fed up with seeing the silhouette head. So I had a suggestion — how about replacing the head with a 1 pixel high, 154 pixel wide blank image? Then the infoboxes without photos would just have a small space. And newbies wouldn't be encouraged to find photos on the web and upload them, only for me to remove them again.
Any comments? I didn't want to be bold on this occasion without asking other people first.
Stephen Turner 15:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The downside of doing that is that it no longer actively encourages people to find and upload taggable images.  But in balance I agree with the idea as it is just making work for us (you :–)) -- Ian ≡ talk 00:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to think that was a downside, but now I'm inclined to think it's an upside. Stephen Turner 09:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've switched to a blank image. Let's see how it goes. We may just get more images in the body of the text, but it's worth a try. Stephen Turner 09:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket no pic.png 

message: Please make the articles atleast three or four lines long. Someone has put up Thelston Payne for deletion. There a few more articles which have the same format. Saving Payne wouldn't be a problem but it would be better if we could avoid this additional heaedache. Tintin 14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hopeless. There's a dynamic IP who makes these substubs, and he appears not to read things on talk pages - DaGizza has invited him twice, Stephen once, I'm sure I've done at times, but he's not replied. He is also an occasional vandal (see  and User_talk:Sam_Vimes#Vandal_Edits). The best we can do, annoying as it may be, is to clean up after him, I'm afraid. Sam Vimes 15:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Is it worth creating a new template  to highlight the articles of one or two lines, so that we know what to expand quickly? Not that the author would add them — he doesn't even use  — but I could probably write a program to find appropriate articles to add them to. Stephen Turner 10:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now discovered that  itself is out of favour — in fact it's been deleted — which perhaps makes my suggestion less appealing. I still think it might be useful within our restricted domain though. Stephen Turner 10:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be possible if we put it on talk pages - so that it's easy to clean up, because I suppose it'll just be for internal use? Sam Vimes 10:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Msg to those who create the stubs 

message: I don't know if anyone's interested, but I just registered the Freenode IRC channel #wikipedia-en-cricket for this WikiProject.  I don't know how many cricket people use IRC apart from myself, Jon and Nichalp, but it might be useful, if only for idling purposes.  If you want to be an op (basically, anyone who plays nicely can be one) just drop me a line.  Perhaps, if this is of interest to anyone, it can be put on the main WP:CRICKET page?  Sam Korn 22:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot user:Ngb. Fuddlemark may also want to join. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC 

message: We need to agree on which categories the English season summaries should be allocated to.
At present we have several seasons from 1890 to about 1900 sitting in the general :category:English cricket while 2005 seems to have a category all to itself.
I have opened :category:English cricket in the 18th Century to cover the period 1697 to 1815 (there are sound reasons of historical continuity not to go from 1701 to 1800).  I have just started a sister :category:English cricket in the 19th Century and it makes sense (historical continuity again) to have this cover the period 1816 - 1889 inclusive.
1889 was the year in which the County Championship was formally instituted and it began in 1890.  We already have several season articles starting from 1890 as per above but nothing before 1890 unless you go right back to 1772 (and earlier).
I propose three additional categories: :category:English cricket 1890 - 1968; :category:English cricket 1969 - 2000; and :category:English cricket in the 21st Century starting with the 2001 season.  
The first covers the heyday of County Championship cricket from its formal institution until its decline following the shift towards LOI competitions (for obvious commercial reasons).  From 1969, the LOI competitions have predominated in domestic cricket and we are effectively dealing with a different era not just because there have been a reduced number of first-class games but also because of the different mindset and culture of the game since LOI took over.  Given the volume of the 2005 data, it makes sense to have a cutoff after 2000 and start a new century from 2001.
I'd like to hear what people think about this before I do anything with the proposed categories.  Consensus will prevail so if you have any definite views, please make sure you air them.
Thanks in advance for your interest.  --Jack 13:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think whether this is sensible or not depends on what sort of articles will go in different categories. I imagine :Category:English cricket seasons would be a suitable place to store all articles about particular seasons. More general info could go in the sort of categories Jack suggests, although I'm not persuaded about the cut-off dates he uses. But then again, I suppose any cut-off dates will be kind of arbitrary, jguk 15:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And if there's enough articles about a particular season, it could be made a subcategory of English cricket seasons (with the main article remaining in both?). I would, however, prefer names like :category:English cricket from 1890 to 1968 - this prevents people having to add the dash, which I understand is a bit controversial around WP (I think ndashes like – are preferred, but that would mean a lot of typing and confusion). Sam Vimes 15:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm open to all ideas about cutoff dates and I agree with Sam re the dash which I gather is frowned upon in wider WP circles.  Actually, I quite like the suggestion of :Category:English cricket seasons providing it is restricted to season summaries.  --Jack 17:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 1999 seems a little bit more logical than 2000, even though the nitpickers would say that the 20th century didn't end until 2001. Everyone celebrated it in 1999 anyway, so I think that's the best split. Agreed with the rest, though (although perhaps 1944 instead of 1945, since Victory Tests would belong in a category 1945 English cricket season but is definitely a post-war occurrence). Sam Vimes 12:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and just to check that I'm understanding you right - :Category:English cricket seasons would go under a new History of cricket category in addition to the Cricket in England category? Sam Vimes 12:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes.  All of this is to go into :category:History of cricket which is itself a main subcategory of :category:Cricket --Jack 10:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Season Categories