Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 14

message: The following is a list of redirects that should be fixed, and then deleted, since it is never likely anyone will type article names like this. --AllyUnion (talk) desk 10:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects that need fixing 

message: I've noticed two new cricketer bios which claim the players are vegans — Martyn Moxon and Jimmy Maher. Can anyone confirm either of these? Stephen Turner 11:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was added here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegans? 

message: User 203.3.197.249 is making what looks to be trolling comments on Talk:Shane Warne, implying that people who edit Wikipedia should get a life. I suggest ignoring rather than engaging this person. -dmmaus 05:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's annoyed because I reverted his assertion that Warne is the greatest leg spin bowler in history, back to something less definitive. I agree it's time to ignore him though. Stephen Turner 10:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: He's also just asserted that Allan Border is a smoker. Is this true? Stephen Turner 10:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it is, it's not relevant to the article.  To say he's a noted smoker (whatever that is) implies there would be references to that claim. These aren't given. Reverting. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Troll on [[Talk:Shane Warne]]

message: For a list of recent edits to cricketers' talk pages, see here. Stephen Turner 12:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to cricketers' talk pages 

message: You may see a user called CricketBot going around editing some cricket articles in the future. At the moment, it's busy changing "test" into "Test".
CricketBot is really me in disguise. I wrote a bot to find common errors in cricket articles, but it only suggests the changes to me, and I check each one before saving the page. (You may have noticed me doing this under my own account before, but it turns out to be good practice to run it as a separate user).
You can see a list of ideas I have for future edits of this sort on CricketBot's home page. If you have any more similar ideas, drop me a note. And if there are any problems with the edits, likewise let me know.
Stephen Turner 14:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CricketBot 

message: I'm suggesting that we standardise cricket seasons to be (for example) "1971-72". Currently we have 1971/1972, 1971/2, 1971-2, 1971/72, 1971-72 (and other combinations I'm sure).  There is a related discussion on this above, under =Style guidelines=, although that's specifically talking about article names.  I am talking about plain text in the body of an article.
I see no reason to link years when referring to seasons, and I suggest that while the MOS seems to be silent (AFAIK) on seasons specifically (other than this) , I think a "-" (or en-dash) just looks better and is more widely used these days than a "/".
The other day I amended the Cricket Article Style Guide (on the WP:Cricket page to reflect this, without really getting confirmation that's what everyone agrees or disagrees with. I'd like to know if we can agree on it here. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like 1971-72 in the title of an article, and 1971–72 in the body of an article. (The first is a hyphen, the second is an en dash). I'm not sure whether it should be 1971-72 South African cricket season or South African cricket season 1971-72, and Sam Vimes pointed out a separate Wikipedia-wide proposal for South African cricket season (1971-1972) (in parentheses, with the years in full). Stephen Turner 15:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think we'd better put our viewpoints in there instead of here - since it would be a bit odd for WP:Cricket to have style guidelines flying in the face of the rest of WP. Sam Vimes 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That proposal is for naming conventions (article titles). I'm taking about content in the body of an article. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, never mind then. I like 1971-72 too, preferably with a link to the season involved (so 1971-72) Sam Vimes 07:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I prefer both years in full as per 1971-1972.  Leaving the century out looks lazy and if you are producing a list by years it becomes disjointed when you are obliged to include 1899-1900 and 1999-2000.  --Jack 08:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think articles quickly become bloated with useless numbers when you write 19 twice (yes, I know that is a reason for leaving out the third digit as well, but any article on a decent-length career will be inconsistent if the third digit is left out - whereas most will use the same system if the third digit is kept). Sam Vimes 17:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Sam's last point about too many digits with repeated 19s, and also with his view that we need the third digit. And I'm not sure I see the logic of having a different style (with a hyphen) in the title from that in the article (with an en dash, as per Stephen's suggestion above). "Keep it simple" isn't a bad rule to have, unless there are over-riding reasons for complexity. In this case, hyphens are probably easier to handle for more people. Johnlp 22:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm replying to this a bit late, but I like an en dash because it's typographically correct (in the sense of "conventional in educated publications") and because the Manual of Style says so. Not that I care enough to change hyphens if other people write them. Also it doesn't work in article titles because it's too difficult to type into the search box. Stephen Turner 20:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Season styles (again)

message: An anonymous user  (which my IP locator places in Norwich, England with 75% certainty - but then it places me in Bristol with higher certainty and I'm in London!) has just added quite a bit of info to a number of pages on Zimbabwean players. No references, and the internet doesn't show it up as a copyvio. I have invited the user add references, sign up and join WP:Cricket, jguk 09:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent updates on Zimbabwean players 

message: I am fed up with reading Pakistani cricket biographies (and a few Indian ones) full of non-NPOV statements, and unsourced claims about their personalities. Most of the Pakistani bios read like magazine articles, not encyclopaedia articles. Some of them even have alternate sentences portraying them as heroes then villains. I know those people are fanatical about their cricketers, but it doesn't make for a good encyclopaedia </rant>. Stephen Turner 13:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: um...Ok. ;) At least they don't change the facts...or... Sam Vimes 16:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistani bios 

message: An anonymous editor created the article Cricket in USA. Apart from the fact the article is very poor at the moment, I'm not sure what it should be called. Do we have another article already that we could redirect it to? Stephen Turner 08:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yeah, that's what I was looking for. Thanks. Redirected now. Stephen Turner 11:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket in USA 

message: There is an AFD on Substitute fielder . No big deal, an obvious redirect. 
South Africa vs Wales at rugby union is also on AfD. Tintin 23:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which has nothing to do with cricket, of course ;) Zunaid 12:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been similar AfDs on cricket articles. So the arguments and the progress of this would be interest to people here :) Tintin 13:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: I'm shocked at the lack of content on domestic cricket. There is nothing on fringe Australian international player David Hussey, who has played for Australia A, for example. Is there going to be a profile starting on such domestic players?
At the least, key players such as captains of Victoria, NSW etc should be included. There was nothing on Darren Berry, who made an Ashes tour in 1997 and captained his side to a Pura Cup title. Surely such key players should be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerthat (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty bad, yes. I think the reason the current domestic players are neglected is because there's currently so much to take care of on the project - profiles of all the Test players have been prioritised, for example, and we're still due articles on all first class teams in the world. It's definitely something that's under consideration, however. Sam Vimes 10:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic cricket 

message: Given the gaping hole in our coverage here, I have started a page (format copied wholesale from Australian national cricket captains).  I've added a list of men's Test captains with results, but help to add a men's ODI list, women's lists, etc, and to diambiguate players, is welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[South African national cricket captains]]

message: Looks like  68.71.35.93 is a vandal, and someone reverted his changes including Trumper and Johnny Douglas]. But his edits in Douglas were correct (or atleast the half that I know about) and I reverted them.
He has also added a passage to Trumper - Interestingly , even though Trumper is best known for his prowess at cricket, he was also a very good Rugby player and he can lay claim to being the prime mover in the development of Rugby League in Sydney in particular and Australia as a whole. The vandal fighter has reverted this too and I don't know whether this is true or not. Tintin 22:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a while ago, wasn't it? I'm pretty sure I Googled on it and there was some corroboration. Don't have time to check again now. Stephen Turner 09:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Sometimes I forget to google :-/ Tintin 19:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by a vandal (?) 

message: I've put a list of cricket biography sub-stubs up at User:CricketBot/substubs. These are articles of only one or two sentences which are so useless that they're in danger of being deleted. Many of them are also grammatically weak.
There's a depressingly large number of them at the moment, so feel free to come along and work on expanding some of them. Or if you don't feel that inspired, some of them are just redirects that need bypassing.
Stephen Turner 18:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um - M. J. K. Smith is listed as a 16 and VVS Laxman as a 17, but look at the articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, look at them without getting redirected - then they're 16 and 17 (which is what the bot picks up). I suppose they need to be struck through, though. Sam Vimes 19:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The links should be changed to bypass the redirect. That's why I left them in. Although next time I do it I'll watch out for them and put them in a different list. Stephen Turner 19:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah-ha! Good explanation. Sorry. Mouth<->foot. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There are some obscure people there, but a surprising number are not obscure at all: Mark Boucher and Alfred Valentine were two I noticed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and I've tackled a couple already (Jackie McGlew and Jim Parks, or rather half of Jim Parks because the sub-stub didn't seem to recognise that there were two of them). But essentially, these sub-stubs are in many instances little better than a redline, and at least if they were redlines then we would know where we had gaps and could tackle them in a more relaxed and maybe more orderly fashion, each with our own take on what constitutes priority. Johnlp 15:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what are the important gaps in our cricket coverage that you'd want covered instead? A lot of people on the to-do list above, admittedly, but they're just as embarrassing as the substubs and should be fixed too. I've heard of ten of them and I don't read much about cricket history (apart from what I get online and in research) Sam Vimes 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the things on the pending list at the top of this page for a start, which have been identified as priorities over a long period. In my view, many of the sub-stubs don't have any real value as they stand: you have to virtually delete them and start again to make them proper articles. So why not do that and then we'll know exactly where we are (in terms of missing biographical articles, at least) and can tackle the gaps according to how we individually and collectively see the priority. Johnlp 15:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: International cricketers are on that to-do list - so, technically, we're just doing that ;) The substubs do give you some information (what team they played for), plus, if we ask for the whole slab to be speedied, we're going to look pretty foolish when we recreate the article. I think, anyway. However, it's not meant to impede you on work you already had planned, so if you don't want to do it that's fine too. Sam Vimes 16:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess it is a matter of opinion and taste. Some like to specialise in a specific area (John and BlackJack), some freelance (Sam). As for me, I prefer to start articles only on Indian cricket for the time being, and usually only fix errors and add a few lines in the other areas. Tintin 15:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that most are no better than a redlink, possibly worse, and I've said before that I think it would have been better if they hadn't been created. But for some reason an anonymous editor has taken it upon himself to create several hundred of them, and in those circumstances I think it's useful to have a list of people that we think we've covered but whom we haven't really. Personally I'll concentrate on expanding the more famous ones, but if Sam wants to do the shortest ones first, that's fine too. The bottom line is, we have 18 decent mini-biographies that we didn't have 48 hours ago. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of sub-stubs 

message: We now have several lists of cricketers, a couple of which are probably redundant. 
#List of cricketers
#List of cricketers by country
#List of international cricketers
My understanding is that 3) is now pretty much the master list, courtesy of Stephen through scans of [[List of <country> Test cricketers]] and [[List of <country> ODI cricketers]].  1 & 2 could therefore now be deleted as the potential size of these lists makes it almost impossible for them to be maintained manually, and I don't see they offer anything extra that List of international cricketers doesn't, other than a place for non-international cricketers.  In respect of listing domestic only cricketers, we could start up a new list, if anyone is so inclined. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the by-country lists, I wonder whether we need any of them. For example, List of international cricketers could be a disambiguation page which links to the individual page for each country, and the others turned into redirects to it.  We would then need a separate (new) page for notable non-international cricketers, such as AEJ Collins, and the first two would need to be combed for such before they are deleted. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main purpose of List of international cricketers is so that you can see all edits to cricketers. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: * That sounds good to me, but I'm keen that the combined list shouldn't contain any hyperlinks other than the players, because it makes "Related changes" much less useful. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen, I've done that and agree with your wish. We'll just have to revert if that srarts happening.  The new list at List of cricketers now needs to be expanded in the ==Domestic crcketers== section - that'll just have to happen manually over time I expect.  IMO, this change makes "related changes" even more useful, as it (will) include domestics. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we have a section for non-ODI international cricketers, too? IL Bula and Ole Mortensen spring to mind... Sam Vimes 14:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, I'm not sure that I understand your question.  There are two major sections currently: ==International cricketers== and ==Domestic cricketers ==. Are you suggesting a third? -- Ian ≡ talk 14:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - for players who have turned out for the national teams of Associate and Affiliate members at various times. They're not really "domestic" players in that they haven't played in a first class league, and haven't turned up in official internationals. Sam Vimes 14:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying.  What section name would you suggest? -- Ian ≡ talk 14:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Non-official internationals" perhaps? Sam Vimes 14:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think rather than make a third section, it would be better to keep them with the domestic players, but think of different names for the two sections. Like "Test and ODI cricketers" vs "Other cricketers", or something like that. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea better too. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I regularly use the Test and ODI cricketers lists. They should stay. They only need updating occasionally anyway (ie on someone's debut),  jguk 17:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not referring to List of Australian Test cricketers etc., but to the combined List of Test cricketers. Do you use those? Myself, I only use List of cricketers. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I regularly use those. I very, very rarely look at List of cricketers, jguk 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fine. I don't have any problem with updating them, I just didn't want to keep them if no-one was using them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricketer lists 

message: heya all, i'm sort of new around here at this project, but not new to cricket (ok call me a tragic). anyway i have been fixing up some Australian stadium articles by adding the infobox_stadium to them, and now I have noticed that none of the cricket grounds currently have a like infobox for them. So I am wondering, and posing it to the cricket buffs on wikipedia, if there should be an infobox created for cricket grounds and if so what information should be included in it (obviously things like location, capacity, first game/test, etc). So support, disagree and comments welcome. if agree i will go ahead and create one and throw it up here. Nomadtales 23:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea - as far as "tragic" goes, I think you'll be hard pressed to find more tragic than a Norwegian bloke with 7,000 edits, mostly related to non-notable cricket matches. :) You could sign up on the project page too, if you like. Anyway, ideas.
# First first class game
# First test match
# First one-day international
# Number of test matches (could be hard to update)
# Capacity
# Names of each end
# Image (free-licensed, obviously)
# Home team (domestic cricket, maybe grade team for Australia too) 
# World Cup stadium, and if so, when Sam Vimes 23:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And
# Highest individual score (fc and one-day)
# Highest team total (fc and one-day)
# Lowest team total (fc and one-day)
# Best bowling (fc and one-day)
I reckon you've got a job for life here if you want it! Johnlp 09:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I hear what you say, Ian, and as an (occasional) contributor who doesn't much enjoy doing these kinds of monitoring and updating task I'd agree with you. But as a reader of an encyclopedia, I think I'd want some of this information at times, and one of the merits of the wikipedia approach is that information of this kind can be kept as topical as possible, unlike conventional reference works. I'm not underestimating the amount of work involved here, but let's not overestimate it too: for a lot of grounds that have been used for a long time, records don't change that often. Johnlp 14:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. Match stats don't need too much maintainance as compared to players' stats. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I like it. Good work. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket Ground infobox 

message: I nominated Mysore Cricketers for deletion. There is no need for it as Category:Karnataka cricketers is already around. The Mysore team was renamed to Karnataka in the early 1970s. Tintin 04:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to do a redirect for this kind of change rather than delete the category? I'm thinking that biogs of old cricketers would tend to refer to the teams they played for under the names they had at the time, and there might be a degree of confusion if we introduced other names. There's a similar point somewhere in here about Australian cricket team names: Donald Bradman played for New South Wales and South Australia, not for New South Wales Blues or Southern Redbacks, which is what the articles on these cricket teams are called. Is there a way of getting across the continuity of these teams without introducing anachronisms into other articles? Johnlp 13:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Afraid not - the current software doesn't allow "category redirects" like that. There is a template called  but the categories with those templates should be empty, which I gather is not what you want. Sam Vimes 13:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That looks a fair option. Tintin 13:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Mysore cricketers 

message: FYI, Hussey played in his 21st ODI today getting a magnificent 88 not-out off 56 balls (although it wasn't enough to save the match from the Kiwi's).  By my calculations that gives him an ODI batting average of 151, more than double that of the next highest on the list - Kevin Pietersen with 73.09 from 23 ODI's.  Cricinfo and Cricketarchive have not updated their record tables yet. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mike Hussey]] 

message: Now that anonymous editors can't create new articles, our anonymous cricket-loving friend has decided to create his sub-stubs on the talk pages instead! See Talk:Owen Wynne and Talk:Frederick Fisher (cricketer). I moved these to the respective article pages, but should I just have blanked them instead? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd report that as a bug (I don't know where though) - I really can't think why we'd want a talk page of a page that doesn't exist. On the grounds that they don't actually do any harm, I wouldn't worry about them - move them if you want. As far as I can tell, they are all very short and not too useful, but they are correct and we will end up writing proper articles for them sometime. I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/List of cricketer talk pages so we can easily check what's happening, jguk 11:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wondered about reporting it at Village Pump but decided it would degenerate into an argument about whether Jimbo's new policy is correct or not. You must have missed the announcement about User:Stephen Turner/CricketersTalk. :-) Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argh! Substubs on talk pages! 

message: My trusty side-kick CricketBot has made a list of articles in :Category:Cricketers which are not in List of cricketers. The list is at User:CricketBot/missing cricketers. Any volunteers to look at a few, and determine which need to be added to List of cricketers#Other cricketers and which are false positives? Thanks, Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we move all cricketing people to the list of cricketers (writers etc) ? Tintin 13:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered about that too. I'd be happy to have everyone there, but what do other people think? Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. What about umpires, officials, commentators also?  I can see arguments for the list to be inclusive to be a catch-all and therefore possibly more useful for the "Related changes" feature; or alternatively restricting it to players only, as the list name infers. I sway (slightly) towards keeping it for players and ex-players only. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How much cricket do they have to have played to count as an ex-player? I'm not sure where to draw the line here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One first-class match. (?) -- Ian ≡ talk 15:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricketers not on [[List of cricketers]] 

message: I've listed Portal:Cricket as a featured portal candidate. Any comments would be useful. See Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Cricket, jguk 14:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Cricket]] 

message: WikiProject Cricket member Ianbrown has been nominated for adminship.  Vote here by 03:10 19 December 2005 (UTC). Snottygobble | Talk 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ianbrown|Ianbrown]] at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ianbrown|RFA]]

message: Hey guys, it seems that I'm doing the WikiProject AFL solo! If you haven't checked out this sports project, my fellow cricket (and hopefully AFL) fans, then I hope you do soon, because I've put a fair bit of effort into it. I understand we also have a Cricket project to complete, but just posting this if anyone is interested. :) Perhaps you could give me some tips that you have learnt participating in Wikiproject cricket and perhaps applying them to the AFL one?
If you feel this isn't appropriate to "wiki-advertise", feel free to delete this message. Rogerthat 10:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject AFL

message: I'm coming to the conclusion that the substub writer is the same as the vegan vandal. Have a look at these edits. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  substub writer = vegan vandal 

message: I've put the format of Arsenal F.C., which is a featured article about a soccer team, onto West Indian cricket team. The idea is to work this up now into a featured article. It's the kind of thing that would be good for a collaboration. Please pop by and help, jguk 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[West Indian cricket team]] 

message: I've created a new template to allow people to advertise their membership of this project. You can add  to your user page to get this:
	This user is a member of WikiProject Cricket, a project to improve the cricket articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help, come and visit the project page, or join in the discussion at the project talk page.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...we already had one at . I don't remember who made it, but I think it was Nichalp. Sam Vimes 12:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, bother, I should have asked here first. I'll get mine deleted. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That other one's still using the non-free cricket ball image. I'll fix that too as my penance. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text:   deleted ;) -- Ian ≡ talk 13:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Ian. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: Is Reverse (cricket) is a commonly used term ? I have never heard it. Tintin 14:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. That's why I added it to the list of recent changes. I wonder if it's known as something else in different parts of the world. Any bowlers out there who could tell us what's being described? Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I just added a question in his talk page. Tintin 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely know of and have seen (and attempted) this type of delivery... I think Steve Waugh was one of the first to do it, and Ian Harvey was/is very good at it.  But I haven't heard it called the "reverse". AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Reverse (cricket)]] 

message: The sentence above says it all. Thanks to everyone who's helped develop it, jguk 18:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Cricket]] is the first [[Wikipedia:Featured portals|Featured portal]]