Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 12

message: At the moment, someone going to 1971-72 South African cricket season will see a blank page, although the summary has been written, because it's at 1971/2 South African cricket season. There's also Gillette Cup in 1971/2 rather than 1971-72 Gillette Cup, 1971/2 Gillette Cup etc, though I think this is less of a problem since readers are somewhat more likely to look directly for the season than competitions within it.
As more non-English season summaries are written, this problem will become more severe, so we really do need to resolve it quickly. Putting aside my own personal preferences, I think the pragmatic view would be to ensure that someone looking for the page will find it; that seems to me to be more important than rigid consistency. That being so, wouldn't the easiest thing to do simply to leave season summaries wherever they're written at first, and create redirects from the most obvious other styles? It would mean a lot of redirects, but redirects are cheap and it would avoid another James-style argument! Loganberry (Talk) 15:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any comments on this, I probably will unilaterally add those redirects at some point, while I probably won't bother with the Dutch cricket season cat. Loganberry (Talk) 23:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style again (sorry!) 

message: I made a request to move the article Invincibles to The Invincibles.  You can vote at Talk:Invincibles. -- Ian ≡ talk 09:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's fixed. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Invincibles 

message: Unfortunately my article, 2011 Cricket World Cup, has been nominated for deletion. Since this row has just erupted, and the venue will be selected next year, I think it's fair that we already have an article on it. I'd be grateful for supportive comments on the AfD. Thanks, jguk 21:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked for this article when I wrote Major League Cricket, so I could link to it, and was surprised it didn't already exist at that time. I'm glad it's up now. -dmmaus 04:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Cricket World Cup]] 

message: I've add three more featured list candidates. Unfortunately, at present they haven't generated much comment. Any votes (either support or object) and constructive comments would be welcome. The nominees are as follows:
*Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of English Twenty20 International cricketers/archive1
*Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Australian Twenty20 International cricketers
*Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Asian XI ODI cricketers
Thanks, jguk 11:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates]] 

message: If anyone has freely licensed pictures of anything to do with the West Indian cricket team - players, grounds, crowdshots, whatever - could they let me know. I'm trying to get West Indian cricket team up to FA status and the lack of pictures is a big hindrance. Any help would be much appreciated, jguk 14:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep an eye out for more.  If you browse the Don Bradman collection  there's heaps of photos which are out of copyright.  Anything taken in Australia pre 1955 can be tagged . -- Ian ≡ talk 00:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Bring it on baby! -- Ian ≡ talk 06:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed; the tag for that particular picture emphasises "to illustrate the book in question". I don't think, for example, that it would be considered acceptable to use it to illustrate articles about any of the players pictured on the cover. We can use it for an article about the book, and that only. Loganberry (Talk) 11:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there is a consensus, I guess I'll have to take down the Shastri pics :-( Tintin 13:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a shame as they add to the article, but I'm afraid I think they will have to go: the image tag is similar to the one for book covers, and emphasises "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". Really, the whole problem is that Fair Use is a lot more restrictive than fair use, if you see what I mean. Personally I think the Shastri pictures ought to be allowed. The problem is that the law doesn't seem to agree with me... Loganberry (Talk) 23:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I assume so. Stephen Turner 16:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't see any problems with that either. All these restictions are irritating to say the least, but we don't really have a choice. =:/ Loganberry (Talk) 23:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I took the bait - stub created Tony Cozier -- Ian ≡ talk 02:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Indian cricket pictures 

message: I'm using Firefox and just noticed that the small image of the cricket ball in the  tag displays as a grey box.  In IE it displays OK as a clearly defined cricket ball.  Is anyone else getting this? -- Ian ≡ talk 13:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me, and I use Firefox...weird. Sam Vimes 13:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Cricketball.jpg 

message: We need a better picture here, methinks! jguk 18:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[CB Fry]] 

message: But, as to stirring excitement, what can surpass a hardly-contested match when ... you win the game by a single and rather nervous wicket, or by five or ten runs! If in the field with a match of this sort, and trying hard to prevent these few runs being knocked off by the last wickets, I know of no excitement so intense for the time, or which lasts so long afterwards. The recollection of these critical moments will make the heart jump for years and years to come; and it is extraordinary to see the delight with which men call up these grand moments to memory; and, to be sure, how they will talk and chatter, their eyes glistening and pulses getting quicker, as if they were again finishing 'that rattling good match'.
Stephen Turner 20:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was [[James Pycroft]] at [[England_v_Australia_4-8_August_2005|Edgbaston]]? 

message: Some of the less famous national cricket teams are being reported at Special:BrokenRedirects:
Bahamian cricket team → Bahamas cricket team
Maldivian cricket team → Maldives cricket team
Mozambican cricket team → Mozambique cricket team
Sierra Leonean cricket team → Sierra Leone cricket team
St Helenian cricket team → St Helena cricket team
Ni-Vanuatu cricket team → Vanuatu cricket team
Is anyone writing articles behind them, or can they be deleted? Susvolans ⇔ 10:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those were created by Loganberry due to a discussion on Talk:International Cricket Council in August. I think these articles will be written (all of them have played plenty of games, and have verifiable data lying around the net), but I can't tell you when, and if the broken redirects really hurt then I wouldn't mind them going. I can see the problem with them linking to an article which doesn't really exist. Sam Vimes 10:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose so, as long as this doesn't cause any problems with restoring the redirects when the articles are written. I think we should have both adjective and noun forms since (especially with the less obvious ones such as Ni-Vanuatu) people tend to use both. Loganberry (Talk) 03:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: I've been thinking vaguely about all the cricket categories. I've got a recollection that there was a big flame-war about this back in the early days of WikiProject Cricket, although I don't remember what it was about, and I certainly don't want to start it again. But I do have a couple of points.
# Are the categorisations by specialism (:Category:English batsmen, :Category:English bowlers etc.) actually useful? I tend not to add players to these categories myself.
# There's a principle that no article should be in both a category and one of its subcategories. This is important to stop the number of articles in the parentmost category getting out of hand. For example, no-one should be in both :Category:West Indian cricketers and :Category:West Indian test cricketers. The :Category:West Indian cricketers should contain subcategories for West Indian test cricketers and West Indian ODI cricketers  (which may of course have some of the same people in) and the only people in the parent category should be those who have not played Tests or ODIs. We seem to ignore this much of the time.
Thoughts?
Stephen Turner 10:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Number two we've been through already - I manually removed Australian cricketers from 150 or so test players only to have jguk move them back an hour later :) Last time we had a discussion on this specific thing was here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/archive5#Cricketers_who_have_played_for_more_than_one_international_team Sam Vimes 10:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand the argument about players in two teams. There's nothing to stop someone being in :Category:Australian test cricketers and :Category:English test cricketers — they just shouldn't also be in :Category:Australian cricketers and :Category:English cricketers. But maybe jguk can explain why it's useful to break the rule in this case. Stephen Turner 11:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I added a new page at Wikipedia:Cricket/Quiz which is self explanatory and which I hope will add a bit of fun to Wikipedia.  Please join in.  Comments and suggestions welcome! -- Ian ≡ talk 14:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be moved to the wikipedia namespace, not the main namespace. And can we use google? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the move?, and yes you can use anything you like! -- Ian ≡ talk 15:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the main space (white background) should be used for articles only. Other fun stuff should be in the wikipedia namespace. I'll fix it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I suggest putting answers in comments.  to close, if you're unsure of the syntax Sam Vimes 23:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about a subpage, but I wasn't sure whether it should be a single page, or one page per question (which is more secret but could get out of hand). Stephen Turner 10:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket quiz 

message: seems to have decided to go through all Middlesex cricketers, changing their names to initials (and in a weird format too) — for example "Mike Gatting" to "M.W.Gatting". He ignored a request on his talk page to desist and seek a consensus first.
I think he's well-intentioned because he has made other useful edits too. He just has his own unconventional ideas about style. Interestingly, his talk page indicates previous occasions where he's applied his own peculiar style to Wikipedia articles and refused to listen to people asking him to stop.
I don't know what else to do, other than go through and revert the bad changes. It doesn't really seem bad enough to ask for him to be blocked, does it?
Stephen Turner 14:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his refusal to discuss the matter and the repercussions that this could lead to must be clearly mentioned on his talk page. If he refuses to respond after four or more times, he can be blocked. Use the , test1 etc to try and get him to tow the line. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, given he is a new user, he might not even know he has a talk page, so there is a possability that he doesn't know that what he is doing is wrong. To me it seems pretty harsh to block someone in that situation. That said, I'm not sure what else we can do, or any other ways we have of contacting him. Raven4x4x 09:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got new messages is bright enough to catch his attention. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realise that happened for non-regestered users as well. In that case you are right, he doesn't have any excuse. Raven4x4x 09:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  195.50.93.237 

message: This article is up for deletion. Please vote if you know anything about it. Tintin 03:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Walhalla Cricket Grounds]] 

message: I'm having a bit of a problem here - Canberra Comets were never a first class cricket team, but I've nevertheless placed them there because there's no other category for them to be in! Given that there's quite a few states that have been changed over the years, is it a good idea to start the category :Category:Defunct cricket teams? Sam Vimes 06:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Comets is the only defunct Australian team I'm aware of. Are there any others in other countries?  Unluess there is, I wouldn't worry about a new category. -- Ian ≡ talk 09:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that we have articles on yet, no. A few minutes of research with cricketarchive reveals the Combined Islands in the West Indies (which was split into Leeward and Windward Islands), and also a couple of defunct states in India, although they have either been renamed (Mysore to Karnataka) or carved into new ones, and Khairpur in Pakistan, which played first class cricket from 1958 to 1973. There may be more, but perhaps it's wise to wait with the category until somebody does the research on all this. Sam Vimes 11:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Or maybe someone should just listify them. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Canberra Comets]]