Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 1

message: I've started to try to improve the English cricket team page. I'd welcome other contributors either adding to the page or offering comments as to which direction it should go to improve it. jguk 19:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely certain about the "England's greatest ever test matches" section. Headingley 1981 I think most people would agree on, but for all that The Oval 2003 was a thrilling match, there have been quite a few others in that class. Besides, it's unavoidably POV as a category - who is to say what the "greatest" matches were? Loganberry 14:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: English cricket team

message: *Template:Muttiah Muralitharan infobox Use this as a guide for new infoboxes to other cricketers (and for bowlers, in particular). Squash
:Good stuff. Just an idea, but would this with some info on main teams Murali's played for? jguk 09:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good idea. I initally just wanted to get the major information out of the way, but I'm very open for any improvements to the infobox. So go ahead and improve the infobox in anyway :). This infobox thing is currently in alpha stages (needs improvement) but when people can be satisfied it is fairly complete, the task of putting it on players article comes. Squash 23:35, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
I've made one based on the Murali one, but it is easily adaptable for other players - just the information needs to be entered on their page when you insert the template, so you don't need to go through the complicated process of finding where to input data. It also includes batting and fielding info because I thought this was relevent to all players - and you can just insert n/a for someone who doesn't bowl. An example with Murali can be found  here. The code for this example is on the this project talk page... If you can think of any improvements, feel free to do them yourself, or just let me know. You can test the changes by editing my test page mentioned above. Hope you like it --AlbinoMonkey 13:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket - is this a good idea?  For active players, this is going to be a devil of a job to keep up-to-date.  Surely a link to the Cricinfo database is likely to be more useful?  How about a template along the lines of the ones used for IMDb - :Template:Imdb name and :Template:Imdb title. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Right - :Template:Cricinfo expands to .  It is in use right now on Andrew Strauss (usage: "").  Is this useful?  It would standardise the nearly-ubiquitous Cricinfo links a bit, although Cricinfo is really disappointing.  The reference that has to be sent to the template ("|ref=...") ends up a bit clunky because of the structure of the Cricinfo database itself: team, letter, name_and_reference. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from main page

message: Sorry if this a stupid or obvious question, but where does the abbreviation for the bowling type come from? eg Murali is listed as Off spin (OB) - I did Shane Warne, and just put Leg spin (LB), but wasn't sure if LB was the right thing... where'd you get it from? AlbinoMonkey 08:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were such as huge cricket fan, then you shoud know (from viewing live scorecards on cricinfo) the abbreviations of such bowlers. Shane Warne bowls Leg Break Googly and therefore the abbreviation is LBG or just LB like that of OB (Off Break)... There are also RF, RM, SLA, LBG, OB, and more... Squash 09:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a small point, if we were to follow Wisden's lead, there is a subtle difference between LB and LBG.  LB is leg breaks, while LBG is leg breaks and googlies.  Not every leg-spinner has a googly, and these are listed as LB.  However Shane Warne does have a googly (even if he never bowls it), so the correct listing is LBG.  Smoddy | Talk 16:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I've added a table of bowling style abbreviations to the Types of bowlers in cricket article, which should both be useful for readers and helpful to us as we write the infoboxes. :) I'd appreciate it if you guys would give it a quick once-over to make sure I've not missed anything obvious out, or made any glaring errors. --Ngb 17:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Yeh I knew I'd seen it somewhere, I thought it was on the player page, but couldn't find it there... Thanks. --AlbinoMonkey 23:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bowling style abbreviations

message: Although it's mentioned in Cricket terminology, do people think it would be good to have a full definition-type article on partnership (cricket)? As well as the obvious link from partnership, there is an overlap with some of the material in wicket and innings, and possibly with some of the other cricket articles. Unfortunately I don't have time to write it myself at the moment. Anyone want to have a go? Stephen Turner 08:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of partnership 

message: Goodness, I'm new here, and following the Wikipedia decree "Be Bold" I have almost finished finished restructing the cricket section, and adding lots of category links. Now I have discovered this project! 
What do you think to what I have done? The main alternative to the way I have arranged things that I considered was to have a much smaller main menu with less than ten main categories, one of which could have been "Cricket by country". The reason I didn't go with this approach is that the other headings are harder to define, especially for all the sub-categories called "cricket - something". I could come up with a list of six or so that I would understand myself, but I think that it would have been too broad brush to be helpful to people who don't know much about cricket.
Is three dozen first level sub-categories too many? I'm inclined to think not, but I know it might look a little daunting, so I tried to highlight the more important ones, but the highlighting didn't work.
As for the overview "cricket" article, I think it looks silly hanging around at the bottom as the only article in the main menu. Perhaps we could hightlight it more boldly where it appears above the menu.
Philip 23:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it sorely needed doing, and the scheme you've chosen seems fine to me. It's clearly organised, and it doesn't really matter which method of organising the category gets used as long as it's clear. As to the overview article being in the Cricket category itself: when I reverted your removal of the article from that category, I didn't realise that you'd mentioned it above the menu. However, that's because I habitually skip over bumpf above the category listings, and I think most people probably do the same. --Ngb 10:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Category Structure

message: I created :Category:Women's cricket, and allocated my stub article Women's test cricket to it, but it is not showing up in the category, even though the categoey link appears on the article's page. I thought this might be due to the apostrophe because I also had problems with another category with an apostrophe in it's name, but I asked about this on the helpdesk and someone pointed out that there are some category's with an apostrophe which are working normally, and no one offered a solution. Any ideas? Philip 10:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to the category isn't showing up above, but it's in the main menu Philip 10:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems that the box template thing makes him appear automically, so the standard format category link isn't required. I've removed it for you.Philip 16:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I only looked at that one. Philip 02:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trouble with women's cricket category

message: My attempt to add an infobox to WG Grace is not as successful as it should have been. I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it. Could someone take a look at it? Thanks, jguk 12:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see what you mean.  It isn't working for me, either (I have attempted a cropped version of the other image).  Smoddy | Talk 15:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I've just seen how to solve it - moving the picci down the page makes it work, jguk 15:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WG Grace

message: I have seen that some infobox have portrait of some cricketers from cricinfo. If you look at an example say:
:Portrait of Sachin Tendulkar
You will see at the bottom it says
 Image: © Getty Images 2004. This image may not be reproduced without
 specific consent from Getty Images
Meaning it was licensed or cricinfo was granted permission to use it. Whilst it is copyright and we can claim it under fair use. The section that says "This image may not be reproduced without specific consent from Getty Images" is the problem. We either need to get permission from Getty Images OR not use pictures at all. Squash 22:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh this is true - we probably shouldn't use them. Wikipedia doesn't want any more pictures that have Wikipedia-only permission as others might download and use the picture without seeing this permission. In the ones I've done, I haven't used any Cricinfo pics, and only use a pic if it is on the page already (eg Imran Khan). AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 23:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Portraits in infobox