Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 41

message: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick .Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marcus Trescothick]] 

message: Hi,
Can somebody jog my memory:
A man-of-the-match winner in a Lord's final without taking a wicket or scoring a run...
Cheers
–MDCollins (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John Abrahams of Lancashire, won it for his captaincy. I forget the year. Andrew nixon 11:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1984 B & H Cup --Jpeeling 11:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual Man-of-the-match 

message: Another thing I worked on this afternoon is a bunch of first-class cricket teams by season templates, from 2007 back to 1890, each one of which links to "<team> County Cricket Club in <year>", based on the teams in the County Championship in each year, through expansions in 1894, 1897, Worcestershire's absence in the championship in 1919 and return in 1920, and Durham's introduction in 1992. These are here, and, although this template is unneeded for the 2005 season, as all teams have articles dedicated to them based on this season, it would be useful to have templates for all other seasons when such articles are created. Thoughts? Bobo. 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand why you say the template is unneeded in 2005, where there are actually articles that the navigation template would be used in. JPD (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that the template doesn't need to be used in 2005 because there is already a template used: see for example the English cricket season articles on Derbyshire or Durham, where the bottom infobox covers the 2005 season with a greater number of teams than any of my templates, with me still only using the 18 in the County Championship. Bobo. 17:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: I'm getting slightly confused here. So here are my immediate plans as regards cricket clubs by season, summarized easy enough so that I can understand what I'm doing.
*Firstly, can someone please give the thumbs up or thumbs down to this. Do you want anything else covered? An infobox of some kind? A list of debuts?
*Secondly, can someone give me a yea or nay as per the early cricket seasons by team templates, which  are all here, not so much those for the later seasons, as information in those is covered, particularly for the 2005 season, in great detail, but certainly those for the early years.
*More of the same in terms of prose descriptions of early County cricket seasons?
Tell me what else you want doing to the article - I'll probably do another one this afternoon. Bobo. 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: Why is there a disambiguation page, one of them doesn't even have an article, one has barely enough text to fill a square of bog roll and then there's the cricketer. 86.128.110.219 15:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Bell 

message: Greater forces than me have tried to gain concensus on this issue but I might as well try. I've recently added FC teams to all Australian International cricketers, e.g. :Category:New South Wales cricketers to John Benaud and I'm about to undertake a similar process with all New Zealand International cricketers.
So as I add categories should I delete :Category:New Zealand cricketers it's already been done to all Australian Test/ODI/T20 cricketers and seems obvious to have the same rule for all nations. --Jpeeling 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say leave it. Suppose I want to look up Joe Bloggs, knowing that he is a cricketer from New Zealand but not knowing which province he played for. I try looking up "Joe Bloggs", but the entry for that name turns out to be some rock musician. "Joe Bloggs (cricketer)" turns up an English cricketer of that name, not the player that I'm after. In a situation like that, it's very useful to be able to look at all the players in the "New Zealand cricketers" category and find him that way. (Ideally of course, any entries for other Joe Bloggs would contain appropriate disambiguation pointers, but in practice that often is lacking.) JH (talk page) 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started on the New Zealand players most seem to have the FC team as categories already. I've found some possible moves, wasn't sure whether to do them without checking here first. --Jpeeling 15:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: In light of the recent Australian tour of India, this Cricinfo article about Ranji and knowing the impact the apartheid had on the South African cricket team, I think that such an article would have lots of potential. I also recall and Eng vs WI series stirring up racism, where according to memory, the English players refused to play with a black team. If anybody has any spare time and don't how to spend it, may I suggest writing this! GizzaDiscuss © 08:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Racism in cricket]] 

message: It seems the rules on neutral umpires have gone out the window. --Jpeeling 18:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no rules on neutral umpires for Twenty20 Internationals. Outside the World Championship, they're treated by the ICC as (essentially) glorified exhibition games. Andrew nixon 18:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Twenty20 

message: The Ashes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ashes 

message: The article, previously at Michael Durant (cricketer), who had been an Under-19 Namibian cricketer, has a new Cricket Archive entry, spelling his name Michael Durandt. Since this is a much higher level, and discrepancies in younger Namibian players can be found in three or four places in Cricket Archive, this seems like this would be the more likely way to spell his name. Just to check whether you guys think this is sensible. Bobo. 04:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Durandt 

message: Hi all,
The Marcus Trescothick FAC failed, but no real reason why. All of the comments were addressed/discussed, and there was certainly no objections. Can anyone suggest the way forward? Does it need any more work before re-nominating? Could a couple of you with FAC experience (or with lots of promotions) have a look please? 
Thanks guys,
–MDCollins (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno. Some FACs with majority support but without consensus, have been archived quickly recently. Hmm, I think asking Raul for clarification might be useful in this case. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trescothick FAC...update 

message: There's been an astonishing lack of interest in the FAR page. Are we content to let The Ashes lose its Featured status without fighting to keep it? --Dweller 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honourable exceptions, of course, are Tintin, JHall and Blnguyen who're active at the article, fixing it and BlackJack who made a great suggestion at the FAR. --Dweller 10:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit that I haven't done very much recently. Also I must confess that - though I of course accept that all potentially contentious statements should have citations to support them - I am rather ambivalent about the level of citing that a Featured Article appears to require. Having seemingly almost every statement with a footnote attached IMO makes an article look unattractive. I don't think that most printed encyclopaedias go in for citing to such an extreme degree. As an example of what I think is excessive citing consider: Australia went two-nil up after three Tests, but England won the fourth Test by 3 runs (after a 70-run last wicket stand) to set up the final decider. However, the game was drawn. That has a citation of the relevant part of Harte's book. But something as straightforward as a scorecard could be easily looked up by anyone interested online by anyone with any Googling skills. Few people will have access to the Harte book in any case, to check that it really does say what is claimed. If we must have references for scores, then online references from a respected site such as CricketArchive, that anyone is in a position to check, seem to me to be preferable. I appreciate that we can't go against Wikipedia guidelines on citations, if we want to retain FA status, but these are two related points that have been bothering me for a long time, so I thought that this was as good an excuse as any to vent on the subject. :)  JH (talk page) 20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you vented. First, because you did it so well. And secondly, because I was beginning to get quite lonely here. --Dweller 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This was what the article looked like just after the 2005 series. I think the section on matches should go back to this, with the recent series compressed into one section. The "legend of the ashes" now contains too many details and quotes. Except the main quote (Sporting times), the rest should be removed, or if someone really wants to retain it, pushed to the notes section. Tintin 05:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Ashes|Ashes FAR]] 

message: The consensus on this article when it was up for deletion was not entirely clear: it has, however, been kept and a lot of contributors to that deliberation (including me) felt that the title needed to be changed. Rather than let this languish, can we have a debate here about a new title for this, as a starting point for improving this article and then making links to it from other articles where the subjects are involved in the controversy or affected by different interpretations of what is a first-class match? Johnlp 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking about this. It's hard to come up with a more descriptive title whilst keeping it reasonably short and neutral in tone. I think that the word "cricket" definitely ought to be in there somewhere. Maybe something like "Cricketers' career totals: traditional and revisionist". JH (talk page) 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Revisionist" sounds very negative to me. How about something like "First-class cricket statistics discrepancies"? Not very catchy, but... Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that sounds pretty good. JH (talk page) 08:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In the absence of other suggestions (and wanting to act while the issue was still fresh in collective minds) I've moved this article to First-Class Cricket Statistics Discrepancies, following Stephen's suggestion. I have also amended references in the Grace, Hobbs, Jack Newman and Somerset CCC First-Class Matches articles to point to this article as providing an explanation for the divergences in published stats. The article itself could still do with some work on it, I think. Johnlp 20:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How interesting that two days with three fairly experienced editors pretty much in agreement is too short a time to make a change, when just a couple of hours is enough for one person to override that view. From a reader's viewpoint, which is the one that matters in a work that is intended to be read, differences between stats in published accounts are "discrepancies", and there is no POV or implication of correctness on one side or the other in this. I'll not now change this back, but it doesn't leave a pleasant taste with me: I'd hoped that some work by some of us without a particular axe to grind in this area might sort this out in the spirit of collaboration. Obviously I was too naive. Johnlp 11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Johnlp. To me, "discrepancies" doesn't have the connotation that BlackJack claims, though the new title is fine too. I think BlackJack is just over-sensitive about this topic. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discrepancy is a synonym of error and in common usage it signifies an error of detail.  There are no errors of detail in the Wisden version of these stats and none in the CricketArchive version either: they are simply two alternative versions.  I am very interested in the article because I can see greater potential for it than it has had previously.  Differences in cricket statistics go right back to the 18th century and the first person to really highlight the fact was not Webber but Haygarth, as I shall show.  As for collaboration, you need to read what Dweller is saying on this page about The Ashes.  I never wait for collaborators: if I'm interested enough to make major changes I get on with it as per WP:BOLD.  If anyone else wants to help out, they're welcome – but it doesn't often happen.  --BlackJack | talk page 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Rewrite completed.  --BlackJack | talk page 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Traditional career totals]] 

message: Cricket stubs are being discussed  here. --Jpeeling 15:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket Stubs 

message: In expanding the Murray Bisset article, I noted that he was only 23 when he captained South Africa. I know that Taibu was younger when he captained Zimbabwe but has anyone else captained a Test side younger than Bisset? And can anyon recommend reference for this fact? --Roisterer 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe I managed to miss 4 captains. Thanks for the reference. --Roisterer 12:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youngest Test captains 

message: A cricketer called Morshed Hossain has been put up for speedy deletion even though he is notable any help given by this project would be greatly appreciated. 02blythed 09:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  notable cricketer up for deletion 

message: I found this lovely image (in a theatrical journal of all things), and thought it might be useful, but am not enough of an expert on cricket to put it properly in context. I know there was a debate on paying cricketers in the 19th century, but can't remember the details.  Adam Cuerden talk 09:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[W. G. Grace]], [[Bobby Abel]], and history of cricket 

message: As the quality of articles on modern Test cricketers is generally high and the research has become very detailed, I have noticed that the number of items in the list of references (footnotes) has become quite large.  I have started to include scroll bars and panels on those cricketers with very lengthy (and somewhat distracting) lists of references in order to improve readability.  Does this make sense?  Check out Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Muttiah Muralitharan to see some examples. --Calabraxthis 10:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't do that. Scrolling lists should not be used due to readability concerns. Please see the citation guidelines for details. In addition, it doesn't matter if a particular reference section is too long; it appears at the end of the article in any case. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnoting and reference lists 

message: At present the cricketer infobox presents dates of birth in American English. This is totally inappropriate. The golfer infobox allows them to be presented either way. Eg the relevant entry for Darren Clarke is:
| Birth ||  Dungannon, Northern Ireland
|-
the |df=y line puts the date in the correct British format. It is also used for many other British people, to ensure that there is no American English in their infobox. Could someone possibly update the format of the cricketer infobox to incorporate this feature? Mowsbury 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They both display the same to me, for example: Darren Clarke displays "August 14, 1968 (age 39)", Darren Gough as "September 18, 1970 (age 37)". This might be because the Template:Infobox cricketer biography uses the date and time preferences set in your "my preferences/date and time" formats, and mine is set to the above format. If this is not the case, feel free to reply...
This is why most people don't notice. If your preferences are set, then any wikilinked date will be shown according to your preferences. If however, you are not logged in, or have no date preference set, then they will be shown as entered, so it is better to enter them in the format best suited to the article. The template currently uses the "US" format, meaning anyone not logged in will see the "US" version, rather than the format more common in cricketing countries. JPD (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: For clarification, I assume the US format is November 9, 2007, and the UK format 9 November 2007? I may have changed the template's default behaviour, but would have to change my preferences to confirm. Can anyone else have a look please? –MDCollins (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what's meant, even though it's not true that either format is universally used in either country. I checked simply by logging out, and it seems to be right now. JPD (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good! –MDCollins (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of American date formats 

message: A bunch of workshy communists they may be, but the Guardian is offering a free 24 hour pass to its archives at the moment.  This could be a great source of material for articles here, match reports, obituaries etc. Just a thought.  Nick mallory 11:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian Archive 

message: I have recently created an article about Arthur Holt who was both a cricketer with Hampshire and a footballer with Southampton. As my cricket knowledge is fairly limited, I was wondering if someone could have a look at the article and possibly tidy up, improve or expand the cricket sections. I was deliberating whether to title the article as "Arthur Holt (cricketer)" or "Arthur Holt (footballer)" and decided that he was probably better known as a cricketer and his shop definitely specialised in cricket. Thanks in anticipation of your help.  --Daemonic Kangaroo 10:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Holt (cricketer) 

message: I've been expanding and re-writing the Hampshire WK Adi Aymes article, and have come across a discrepancy in his ListA runs. Currently Cricinfo and Cricketarchive have the figure at 2210, but other sources and biographical articles (not necessarily cricket related) have this at 2269. I have gone with the reliable figures, but was wondering if the incorrect figure stems from Playfair, or Who's Who or a Hampshire Yearbook or anything. If anybody has any of those resources from 2002/3 it might be interesting to find where the 59 runs came from. Just a thought anyway!
–MDCollins (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the sources agree on his catches and stumpings? If so, then it is probably an error in calculation rather than whether some match had List A status. I see that his last List A match was in 2001. Playfair 2002 gives his List A runs as 2210 in 221 matches, ie it agrees with Cricinfo and CricketArchive. JH (talk page) 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so. Thanks for looking anyway, I'll stick to the archive. Perhaps I'll put a note in somewhere. –MDCollins (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adrian Aymes]] ListA stats 

message: I have just nominated Ian Chappell for FAC. Would appreciate some comments here . Cheers
Phanto282 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ian Chappell]] FAC 

message: Whatever next. Sounds fun though!
–MDCollins (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely it looks more real than the white ones! Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink cricket balls 

message: I have just nominated Arthur Morris for FAC. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Arthur Morris. First step towards the Invincibles FT. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arthur Morris]] FAC 

message: Please can people lend their support to the above FAC. The article is good enough for FA but the last FAC was closed unsuccessfully simply because hardly anyone commented, and those who did didn't go back and lend their support once we addressed their points. Please lets not let that happen this time! Cheers, SGGH speak! 10:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick]] 

message: Please can people lend their support to the above FAC. The article is good enough for FA but the last FAC was closed unsuccessfully simply because hardly anyone commented, and those who did didn't go back and lend their support once we addressed their points. Please lets not let that happen this time! Cheers, SGGH speak! 10:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick]] 

message: Presumably as a result if his arrest a couple of days ago, this article is taking a hammering with vandalism and POV edits.  Please add it to you watchlists if its not already. —Moondyne 08:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's worth sprotecting it? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its there just yet, but will if gets any worse. —Moondyne 14:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Imran Khan]] 

message: Yuvraj of Patiala was moved to Maharaja Yadavindra Singh last night by Trv93. He copied the text and pasted it onto the new article this means the history was destroyed. I googled both names and Yuvraj of Patiala won by 45,900 to 1,160. Can one of the admins who has knowledge of India take a look at it. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know enough about the non-cricketing side to make a confident comment about this, but I think Yadavindra Singh of Patiala (not the current title) would be quite fine. He ceased to be the Yuvraj (prince) in 1938 when his father Bhupinder Singh of Patiala died. If you look at the big picture, playing one cricket Test match was among the least of his achievements. He was the pro-chancellor the Indian chamber of princes (an association of 550+ princely states), Rajpramukh of Patiala after 1947, represented India in the UN on several occasions, was the ambassador in Italy and Switzerland etc. See this link for a big list. I'll also post a message in the India notice board. Tintin 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuvraj of Patiala > [[Maharaja Yadavindra Singh]] 

message: Looking for some variety in those match descriptions? Can't quite find a new turn of phrase that will make your prose engaging, nay brilliant? Try this for inspiration. It's all theatre for the Americans....
Phanto282 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variety 

message: Hi all,
Do we need this article: cricketer? It is linked to a few player articles, but most biographies tend to use cricketer.
I just thought it might be worth revisiting the talk-page debate about turning it into a dab page.
–MDCollins (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, being bold and . cricketer is now a redirect to cricket, and cricketer (disambiguation) lists the multiple meanings.  The alternative is to change ~1600 pages which link to cricketer to cricketer.  —Moondyne 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I really hate is biographies which use the phrase "X is a cricket player". I can only assume it's by analogy to baseball. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was planning to use AWB to change all links from cricketer to cricketer but it was being uncooperative and kept crashing so I didn't get anyway. If I get it working, I'll try and check for cricket player as well. It will be more obvious to editors what the correct form is. I'll mention it on the project style guide too. –MDCollins (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cricketer]] 

message: Should the two articles Champion County and County Championship be merged?
I believe a merged article would have a good chance of elevation to good or even featured article status.  At present, it is a house divided.  The former article describes the origin of the championship in conceptual terms and the latter is specific to the official competition that evolved from the concept.  To present a complete study, I believe the essential scope of the article must be the full evolution.  
Please discuss.  Thank you.  --AlbertMW 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be in favourr of a merged article under some such title as History of the County Championship, so long as it didn't mean that the combined article would be so long that there would be pressure to cut it to keep it within Wkipedia guidelines on length. JH (talk page) 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You are right about length.  The optimum could be to have two articles after all, one about the concept and one about the history.  Leave it with me and I will see what I can do.  --AlbertMW (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the articles should remain separate with clear cross-refs between them. The County Championship is a formal competition that did not start until 1890; the informal and unofficial rankings before that are clearly part of the background that led to the establishment of the formal competition, but once you've said that in the Championship article, the details of pre-1890 machinations are better covered, in my view, with all their attendant ACS-related controversies, in a different article. Johnlp (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You've lost me.  I know of no controversy about the County Championship unless you mean the different lists in use between 1864 and 1889?  I have used Grace's list as a default, but that is not controversial, especially as I have stated where a strong alternative claim exists.  There is controversy about the status of matches before 1895 but that does not impact the championship, official or unofficial.  --AlbertMW (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  County Cricket 

message: This was discussed previously here but a consensus is not apparent.  All three words capitalised with no hyphen does seem to be the ICC standard, but Cricinfo uses "One-Day International" (CricketArchive just says "ODI").  Our style guide still says "One-day International" which contradicts the current article name.  There's lots of articles which link to each of the variants.
#One Day International ~180
#One-Day International ~522
#One day international ~126
#One-day International ~930
#One-day international ~617
I agree that changing existing links should not be an obstacle to making the right decision, but in the interests of consistency which one shall we use?  I say #1. —Moondyne 01:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer Limited Overs International (LOI) because such games are not necessarily of a single day's duration but they are all subject to limited overs.  Having said that, of the above list I definitely prefer #1 – One Day International.  --AlbertMW (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The BBC appear to use #1 One Day International also. —Moondyne 07:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Omitting the hyphen looks like bad grammar to me, though maybe I'm just out of date. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Stephen, grammatically the current style guide usage seems correct, but if the wider cricketing world suggests otherwise, should we bow to their (possible) incorrectness?! –MDCollins (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of [[One Day International]] (revisited) 

message: I have just nominated Arthur Morris for FAC. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Arthur Morris. First step towards the Invincibles FT. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Need some help with some complaints about the article being too technical. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arthur Morris]] FAC 

message: The Cricket article seems to be attracting an awful lot of vandalism recently. Time to give it some sort of protected status? Andrew nixon (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cricket]] protection? 

message: *List of Indian ODI cricketers > List of One-Day International cricketers from India
This goes against the format for all other countries. Discussion needed?
*Shanthakumaran Sreesanth > Sreesanth > Shanthakumaran Sreesanth > S. Sreesanth > Sreesanth
No discussion at any stage. Discussion needed?
*Leslie Fleetwood-Smith > Chuck Fleetwood-Smith
No discussion, fair move IMO.
*Vincent Hogg > Vince Hogg
No discussion, fair move IMO.
*Ebrahim Essop-Adam > Eboo Essop-Adam
No discussion, fair move IMO.
*Pommie Mbangwa > Mpumelelo Mbangwa
No discussion, fair move IMO.
Found these on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cricket articles by quality log maybe there might be a place for a link to it on the WP:Cricket frontpage. Also this. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other recent name changes 

message: Ian Chappell, Marcus Trescothick, Arthur Morris. Thanks to all. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three FAs this month 

message: Muralitharan's article has been moved by User:Gibbsyspin - I'm sure we had a consensus not to move it in a previous discussion (unless I imagined it)? AMBerry (talk | contribs) 10:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says that Murali prefers the changed name, but doesn't reference it. The article further says that even Sri Lankan cricket use the Anglicized version that we are used to and all the cricket websites uses. Further, I have never (in England - this is the English WP) seen it printed Muralidaran, so my view is to revert it (until a Murali reference perhaps dictates otherwise).–MDCollins (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reverted this for the time being, and asked for some references, and a discussion here if needed. –MDCollins (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that User:Gibbsyspin. Having looked at that reference, it seems it was taken from a press conference or similar, and is therefore a transcription of speech. This does not give any indication of spelling, merely of pronunciation. In which case, I propose that the article is named and spelt Muttiah Muralitharan (you indicate that it is the pronunciation and not the spelling that bothers him as such), with a mention in the lead of how to pronouce it: (Ipa and/or 'Murali-duran'). This would leave all other instances of spelling as Muralitharan. On an aside point, the fansite you link to keeps his forename as Muttaih, not Mutiah. –MDCollins (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he prefers "Muralidaran", but "Muralitharan" is by far the most popular name, so the question is, do we follow wiki policy and go with the incorrect but most widely used name, or switch to the spelling he prefers, which very few people use. I'm leaning towards "Muralitharan", because in similar cases that's probably what's been done on Wikipedia, (a notable exception would be the renaming of Myanmar to Burma) but there is the argument that just because most people get it wrong, we don't have to. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 16:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I pretty much okay with sticking to "Muralitharan", cos it isn't that much of an issue and that's what explicit Wikipedia policy states, but I disagree with what you've said there. It's not up to Wisden or Cricinfo or "other RS" to decide what someones name is. It's up to them what they want to be called. Cities, countries etc. have alternate names in different languages, so the native name isn't always what is followed on Wikipedia. But you can't just start calling people all sorts of wrong names. If it was spelt wrong to start off with and continues to be spelt wrong in the media, doesn't mean we have to follow suit. I believe that's why WP:IAR exists. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Various responses - our article about Germany is not at Deutschland. I presume Murali's name is a transliteration, not spelled originally in English characters. Wikipedia is a mirror... it's not for us to decide the rights and wrongs of spelling... we reflect the world as portrayed by WP:V and WP:RS. And finally, throwing IAR into the mix is just silly - that is definitively not why IAR exists. --Dweller (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (From MM talk page): ::::::Reference from The Age, which in addition to detailing chronology of the apparently variable etymology, has also cited (1) what Muralidaran has himself provided, (2) what his name has been recorded as, and (3) what he wears on his own jumper. The spelling given is Muthiah Muralidaran. Link here. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muttiah Muralitharan → [[Mutiah Muralidaran]]