Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 26

message: Two current templates for tagging articles related to the project are  and . What are peoples thoughts on condensing them, likely to the second, more versatile option. Is it possible for WatchlistBot to generate the special pages using another mechanism. Ansell 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm replying to this a bit late, didn't spot it. Anyway,  isn't used for tagging articles, it's used for tagging categories, which has the advantage that every article in the category goes in. Thus there's no need to tag with WikiProject Cricket on the talk page. Sam Vimes | Address me 15:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure the watchlistbot mechanism can use tagged articles instead of (or as well as) categories, but that seems a step backwards for the reason Sam said.  Using tagged categories almost guarantees that the article will be collected into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Articles page.   is used for article ranking, so I think they are different things and need to be kept separated.  —Moondyne 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying! I actually figured out the difference soon after I posted the question and forgot myself to come back here and note that. Cheers, Ansell 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CricketWatch or WikiProject Cricket 

message: As part of the overall restructure of the interantional scene that I'm doing, I've added domestic season reviews for Zimbabwe up to 2004-05 but it appears I can go no further as there effectively was no 2005-06 season and it would seem there will be no 2006-07 season either.
In the season template, I've stopped at 2005 and finished the template list with Zimbabwean cricket issues which is capturing developments in the meantime.  
If anyone has any suggestions about how to address this situation and complete our Zimbabwean coverage, then please let me know as I feel that it is a loose end at present.  --BlackJack | talk page 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The domestic one day tournament was played in 05/06 . No Logan Cup though. Worth an article just discussing the one-day tournament and the cancellation of the Logan Cup and the reasons for it. Andrew nixon 13:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Andrew.  I've been expanding Zimbabwean cricket issues to bring it up to date.  --BlackJack | talk page 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it really hard to write about Zimbabwean cricket in an NPOV way. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And almost impossible to find anything we can reference that actually supports Zimbabwe Cricket to help with NPOV! Andrew nixon 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Cricinfo's review of this years cricket in Zimbabwe is here, if that is of any help.  Obviously, it concentrates mainly on International cricket, but there is some mention of domestic 'issues'. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cricinfo has a very strong editorial position on Zimbabwean cricket. Even though I agree with it, I am still uncomfortable simply repeating it on Wikipedia. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be worth having a look at what WikiProject Ice Hockey did at 2004-05 NHL season, which although for completely different reasons was also a non-existent season. Loganberry (Talk) 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hockey case is indeed very different as it was due to a dispute and is similar to the NFL cases in the 1980s, although those did not cause the loss of the entire seasons.  Zimbabwe is a whole sport in one country going into terminal decline: frankly I can see no way out of it while the current regime is in place.  Many people think Zimbabwe should have full and even associate ICC membership removed.  I suggest the best thing to do is update the "crisis" article each year from the latest Wisden entry on the subject.  This is a logical approach if you look at the seasons template because we have a development era, then several seasons of first-class cricket, then a terminal (literally, perhaps) article to conclude.  --BlackJack | talk page 14:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket in Zimbabwe 

message: There were some discussions in admin noticeboards about youtube links. I didn't read it after the first few posts, but I assume they are not allowed unless we are certain about the copyright. Can someone who has followed the discussion update the rest of us on it. There is a youtube link in the Trevor Chappell incident that keeps coming back. Just wanted to be certain about the rules. Tintin (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. See the box at the top of WP:EL as well as WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted works. In short, any link to a copy of a TV program should be removed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube 

message: While on the cricket style guide, I recently reverted a wholescale change in Laws of cricket, where an enthusiastic editor had changed every single occurrence of a measurement from "imperial (metric equivalent)" to "metric (imperial)". As much as I am a fan of the metric system, I think the laws of cricket should be stated primarily in imperial units, since that's how they're actually defined and written in the MCC document. Worse still, the metric equivalents we give are in many cases only approximate, and therefore strictly incorrect if used as the primary definition.
I propose that an addition be made to the style guide to specify that the first units given follow any official documentation. This means that official measurements for things like the pitch and stumps should always be given in imperial units first, followed by a metric conversion. -dmmaus 23:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it needs to be specified, then specify it. It really is just common sense though, and already implied by the existing style guide. Metric first only applies when there isn't a clear reason to prefer one measurement, and definitions shoudl always be given in the system they are defined in. JPD (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Units of measurement

message: Hello there. I'm not a hugely active member of the project, but I do a fair amount of updates of players infoboxes after international matches. One thing I've noticed is that whilst the majority of players have the balls bowled field some have an overs bowled field. E.g. Mohammed Kaif. Anybody know why? Is it a different version of the template? HornetMike 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: has an option "oversORballs". If it's left out, "overs" are used, otherwise you can set it to balls bowled using "oversORballs = balls". Sam Vimes | Address me 14:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, I see. Thanks, HornetMike 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balls bowled/overs bowled

message: I'm planning to expand on the excellent foundations laid by those who have contributed stubs and short biographical articles for Irish international cricketers. However, I'm wondering whether it would appropriate/acceptable to create a new template specifically for this purpose, as Irish sources typically record a player's averages and statistics in "cap internationals" (which have ranged from 40-over matches to four-day First Class fixtures.) Many of these players appeared in negligible numbers of First Class and List A matches, and would be most closely associated (within the Irish cricketing fraternity) with their international statistics. None of the currently available templates facilitate this (admittedly specialised) requirement.
Any thoughts? DublinDilettante 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Irish cricketers eligible for articles on Wikipedia would only be those who have played first-class or List A cricket, so I'm not sure of the usefulness of such an infobox. I have been mentioning their total games for Ireland in articles, as well as any outstanding achievements in the main body of the article.
I'm currently in the midst of a project to create stubs for every Irish player that has played first-class cricket for Ireland, and it would be great if you could help. I'm currently working on Ireland's earliest first-class matches. Perhaps I could move forward from there, and you could start from Ireland's most recent first-class matches and work backwards, so we meet somewhere in the middle? Andrew nixon 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish Infobox? 

message: I'd be grateful if someone with access to electronic Wisden or hard copy, could check the volume referring to the 1988 Test series between England and West Indies. Does it refer to it as the "summer of four captains" or similar? Anyone else got (m)any refs for this name? --Dweller 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the phrase used somewhere, but it doesn't seem to appear in the 1989 Wisden's Notes by the Editoe, which seemed the most likely place in Wisden for it to occur. JH 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wisden 

message: If anyone has any info about the cricket transclusion problem referred to at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FDecember_16.2C_2005 please post there. --Dweller 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query at [[WP:AN]] 

message: Someone, seemingly from several IP addresses, has been adding information about Darrell Hair offering to resign for payment to the Pakistani cricket team article. I've been reverting it as my position is that the article should be about the Pakistani cricket team, not Darrell Hair, however this person keeps putting it back in. I'm getting tired of reverting it, so any advice? Andrew nixon 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got my eyes on it defnitely, but he seems to only revert when I'm sleeping. I'll revert when necessary. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've noted my opinion on the talk page - perhaps if a consensus develops there it will end the issue? --Cherry blossom tree 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan/Darrell Hair 

message: Someone has just made Bill O'Reilly redirect to the political commentator again. This is against consensus, as established many times. The move needs to be reverted, but only an admin can do it.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've dealt with it. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, ngb. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He changed it back again immediately. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have reverted it back again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop trying to push your own POV and trying to give the cricketeer equal notability.  It has been stated over and over again that the commentator has infinite more notability than a deceased cricket player.  Having the disambiguation page causes more inconvenience than it relieves.  And because there are only two Bill O'Reillys, a disambiguation page is not even necessary.  Simply have Bill O'Reilly be for the commentator, the one that 99.99% of people are familiar with, and then have a disambiguation note at the top of the article redirecting to the cricketeer for the 0.01% of people who want to read about him.Fistful of Questions 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Neutral Point of View, states that one or more points of views has to be fairly represented. In this case since both are notable, we have a disambig page at Bill O'Reilly. I fail to see how we are pushing any sort of POV other than balancing both. To counter your second point, please do mention where the commentator has 'infinitely more' notability than the cricketer. Thirdly, this issue has been discussed in the past see Talk:Bill O'Reilly, and by wikipedia consensus we retain the status quo. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what is known as a fairness bias, when you try to force a weaker point of view into being just as equally important as a more dominant point of view.  This gives disproportionate emphasis on a weaker point of view that it does not deserve.  Stop trying to force equality on a situation that inconveniences more people a thousandfold than it benefits, a small group of people who are trying to push an insignificant POV and are bitter about it.Fistful of Questions 15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How have you come to the conclusion that it is a weaker point of view? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious.  Don't try to play around the obvious facts.Fistful of Questions 15:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not playing around with any facts. What may be obvious to you might not be a hard 'fact'. I'm afraid but you seem to be just trolling around and trying to violate consensus on wikipedia by acting unilaterally, and not giving cogent resposes to your statements. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite.  It is not at all obvious to me why a US commentator should be considered the "primary topic" here.  There is more discussion on my talk page, if you can bear it. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is going on in two places at once. Let's concentrate it at Talk:Bill O'Reilly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephen Turner (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill O'Reilly again -- admin needed 

message: As before, Gene Nygaard is going round and round on Yuvraj Singh yet again. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Harbhajan Singh. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I just noticed the Dhoniexpress link got under our guard again.....Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indexing again 

message: You may have noticed two lists I created recently: List of Bermudian first-class cricketers and List of Canadian first-class cricketers. I'm planning on doing these lists for all six ODI-status countries and also for the USA and perhaps others. I'd like to get all of them up to featured list status in the future, so can someone take a peek at the two I've done so far and let me know how far they are from featured list status? I think the Bermuda one is closest now as it is red-link free. Thanks. Andrew nixon 22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really would appreciate comments on this if anyone has the time. Andrew nixon 08:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to use inline references to get them to pass. I can do this if you need help. Generally, I would expect their stats also to be listed like List of Indian Test cricketers which passed FLC. It seems you could just scrape by into an FL simply with that, but I prefer to put extra info to beef up the main text, to summarise the general activity of the group like I did at Australian Olympic medalists in Swimming, eg, making notes about who is the most capped player, highest run-scorer, wicket taker, catches etc, and a summary of what tournaments there are at the first class scene. I guess it you can get away without it, but it's nice to have a smooth run with 8-10 votes and lots of compliments etc, instead of squeaking past with 3-4 :) Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any help would of course be appreciated! With regards to stats, I don't want the lists to be bogged down with them like the lists of test and ODI cricketers are. Perhaps top-score and best bowling would do? For most caps, etc.. that's a little tricky as several of the players on each list have not played first-class cricket for their country but for sides elsewhere. Perhaps a section on who has played the most first-class games overall and who has played the most for the country in question? Andrew nixon 09:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think averages are important. Of the ones in the other FLs, matches, runs scored, bat avg, bat best, wickets, bowl avg, bowl best, catches and stumpings are the most important. Innings, not out, runs coneded, overs bowled, maidens, seem useless to me. That's just my opinion though. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Lists 

message: Unfortunately, we haven't been able to find sufficient refs to usage of "Summer of four captains" to justify the name of this former DYK article. Shame. In view of this, Rambling Man and I (who're trying to work it up to GA status) think we should change the article name to a more conventional season/series title, at least until (if) we find decent refs for the more jazzy name. I'd appreciate help with the new title, as it should fit with other cricket ones. Of course it refers to the 1988 England v West Indies Test series (five matches, four captains for England). --Dweller 10:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: West Indian cricket team in England in 1988. Not very exciting, I'll admit. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. And no, it's not, but it's verifiably correct! :-( --Dweller 11:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Summer of four captains]] 

message: Should there be an article on medium pace bowling? because at the moment is somebody such as Paul Collingwood, Ricky Ponting, Andrew Symonds etc are "right arm medium" and it has to link to "fast bowling". Or am I just talking crap? User:Speedboy Salesman My talk page ,  ,  (UTC).
:I suppose the problem is that "medium pace" bowling is just like fast bowling (seam, swing, cutters), just delivered a bit slower.  Are there any special characteristics to medium page that deserve its own article?  If not, we could add a small section to fast bowling.  The two meet in the middle anyway, with "fast-medium". -- ALoan (Talk) 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh-ho - spoke too soon.  Medium bowler (a bit like medium bomber). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't "medium pace bowler" much more common than "medium bowler" ? Tintin 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that we have fast bowling and not "fast bowler" I'd have thought medium-pace bowling (with or without the hyphen; redir from the other of course) would be a better bet. Loganberry (Talk) 12:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medium pace? 

message: I see that there are articles for both John Scott (umpire) and John Scott (cricketer). Since the dates of birth and death are identical they must both be about the same person. I'd merge the articles myself, ensuring that no useful information is lost, but I'm just off to bed, so would anyone else like to do it? JH 22:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a go. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for having done so. JH 18:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Articles for John Scott 

message: It is, isn't it? Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! It was added by someone who claims to be Sajid Mahmood. GizzaChat © 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has come back. What do we do ? Ask for  some kind of proof ? Tintin 09:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really doesn't matter because there's no reason to include it even if it is authentic. Why would we want a photo of him at 14? (I think one of the main problems with Wikipedia is that people believe that if something is true, it has a right to be in an article, and should not be removed. In fact, something can be true but unimportant). Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've semi-locked the article since the latest IP to re-add the picture has also vandalised other cricket articles. It probably is a joke then. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of young [[Sajid Mahmood]] a joke? 

message: I'm shocked to find that of the four captains England had during the Summer of four captains, not one has a photo on his WP article. OK, OK, Goochie has a photo, but it looks pretty low res.
If anyone can remedy this, and place a photo on Mike Gatting, John Emburey, Chris Cowdrey or to replace the fuzzy image of Graham Gooch, please drop me a line. Oh, and one for David Gower would be nice too, while we're on the subject of England captains of that era. --Dweller 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as shocked as I was by the inept performances of this sorry bunch in 1988.  ;-)  --BlackJack | talk page 10:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of England captains needed! 

message: I've always thought that 111 was Nelson rather than Nelson's. Does this article have the right title? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, should be Nelson. The terminology is usually 111 = Nelson, 222 = Double Nelson and so on. Andrew nixon 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nelson's]] 

message: There's some discussion on the talk pages of these articles indicating they might be updated automatically or done by bot. I was just wondering whether they actually were, because if not I'd happily do some updating once in a while (although I don't know where to find maiden stats, as they're not on CricInfo profiles as far as I can see. Cheers, HornetMike 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're updated by a bot, but only when I get round to running the bot. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Test/ODI cricketers

message: I've made some fairly substantial additions over a few days to the Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) article, with the hope that cricket project members will have less problem in future asserting his notability against those who believe the US commentator of the same name should take primacy. But I don't have much information about his later journalistic and broadcasting career, so perhaps someone who knows more about his post-playing days could add some words in there. Johnlp 22:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill O'Reilly, again 

message: Is there any reason that many International players are still in the generic superset, even though they are already in the sharper cats like "Test cricketers" and "ODI cricketers" - There seems to be a lot of Test and ODI players also listed in the general cat, so I was wondering, if this was done deliberately? Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it shouldn't be like that. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/archive21#Category:English cricketers, and the earlier discussion linked from there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Indian cricketers]] etc 

message: There are two articles named lob bowling and underarm bowling, the latter much more comprehensive that the former. Would it be a good idea to redirect lob bowling to underarm bowling and make "lob bowling" just a section (or part of a section that deals with different styles of underarm bowling) in the underarm bowling article ? Tintin 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a separate topic to me, rather than a type of underarm bowling, so I would tend to leave them where they are. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Stephen. They are separate in that underarm refers to the method of delivery while lob refers to the trajectory after delivery. Johnlp 08:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lob bowling]] 

message: Please put Stuart Clark and Sajid Mahmood on your watchlists. The same set of users is vandalising both. The pages are sprotected already, but the users concerned have been around for long enough that that doesn't block them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism