Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 32

message: ...but Baseball and American football are. See the removal here () and the "debate" here Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Sport --Dweller 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the list of "vital" sports, it seems to equate to those that are most popular in the US. Otherwise how to explain the absence of soccer, the most popular sport worldwide? The whole thing seems a shambles. Why is athletics an entry on its own rather than under sports, for instance? It's also surprising that tennis and golf don't appear. JH (talk page) 09:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually soccer is listed but what a joke of a list. Certainly more sports should be added or the US ones removed. I would have thought that any sport NOT played in the US would be vital from the perspective of a resource for education.  As a Brit in the US, I have found that many people here have an interest in the question "Just what the hell is Cricket?", so clearly it is a vital article. David D. (Talk) 16:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd support this is if it came up. David D. (Talk) 14:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I tried to put a "prod" tag on it but that wasn't allowed so I've kicked off this discussion on the talk page.  --BlackJack | talk page 06:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cricket]] is not a vital article?? 

message: A certain User:Chidis has continually put borderline defamatory vandalism on these pages with unsourced stuff about racism, presenting them as fact. He has also been making other racist edits on other pages (mainly against Tamils) so I have blocked him, but I would like some more eyes on these pages in case he comes back with a sock army. Thanks, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sanath Jayasuriya]], [[Glenn McGrath]], [[Darren Lehmann]] tendentious edits 

message: While monitoring the second Peer Review of the great John Barton King, the suggestion was made for "a table of King's scores vs each team" and "a chart of his scores over a period of time." Charts, tables, and graphs are not my forté. Would anyone else be able to do something like that?--Eva bd 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the start of a table of scores etc versus various teams. If you (or someone else) wants to complete it then that's great, otherwise I will come back and finish it off tomorrow (time for bed right now!). Also, User:Raven4x4x does some good batting charts, such as the one on for Paul Collingwood the right. He(?) was very helpful last time I asked for one. Hope this is useful to you. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bart King]] Peer Review 

message: Both of the articles dabbed from aconite claim that that plant has been implicated in the death of Bob Woolmer (one of them twice). Does anyone know which is the real aconite? Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The description of the top one certainly matches what cricinfo reported in terms of the results of the poison. But there isn't a desscription for the second - they might have the same effects for all I know. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which aconite? 

message: Greetings All! I'recently done a relatively bold edit of the History of United States cricket article. I listed it on the main project page, but would love some input from other editors. Any help that can be offered is much appreciated. I'm planning on putting it up for general peer review in the next week or two, depending on project members' views.--Eva bd 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has been reviewed and rated for quality and importance.  Good work, Eva.  --BlackJack | talk page 07:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--Eva bd 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of US cricket]] 

message: Is there any difference between this and the inswinger? GizzaChat © 11:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard it as a slang variant, but curiously I've never heard of an outdipper! Redirect? --Dweller 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Redirect. I notice Outdipper has already been redirected. –MDCollins (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: An indipper curves into a batsman before pitching. An inswinger curves into the batsman after pitching. Indippers often are yorkers, mistakenly called inswinging yorkers. A true outdipper is rarely bowled. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought dip referred to vertical movement and swing to lateral. Johnlp 15:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, would an outdipper move upwards from the hand?!  The Rambling Man 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, if Chris Waddle played cricket, he'd be remembered for that. --Dweller 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I've heard Wasim Akram use the term a lot during his playing days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't clear above. I was trying to make the same point. In response to the "before pitching" comment, I meant I've seen swing before and after pitching. However, I now really don't understand what kind of "dip" is meant here. Is this a quick-bowler's equivalent of flight? How does a quick bowler vary the rate at which the ball descends vertically... and what would be the opposite ("bowled rarely"), a full-toss that goes higher and higher over the batsman's head? --Dweller 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Indipper]] 

message: I'm trying to make a clearinghouse of Philadelphian articles for myself. You can reach it in my user space here. I've got a bunch of players listed that need articles made and a a list of overseas tours. Did I miss any Philadelphian tours–first-class or others?--Eva bd 14:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philadelphian Tours 

message: This young man has just achieved something pretty special. I wondered just how special. See his article and feel free to edit! --Dweller 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a remarkable young man. 18 years old and a 1st class avg of 145... and rising. --Dweller 14:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Billy Godleman]] 

message: Progress of Test cricket career run aggregates record and Progress of Test cricket career wicket taking record were started a few months ago by a user who appears to have abandoned them before completion.  I'm not entirely convinced that they're notable. —Moondyne 05:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've prod'ed them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking for something like this when helping write Cricket in Australia.  I think it is notable and deserves to stay, although rather than detailing each change in score, it could be trimmed down to listing when the record changed hands, i.e. Gavaskar to Border to Lara. --Mattinbgn/ talk 09:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we keep the data, it should be in List of Test cricket records. We really don't need a new article for each record. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. --Mattinbgn/ talk 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test aggregates articles 

message: There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Hughes (cricketer) which raises an issue people here might like to consider. The player in question hasn't played a first-class or List A match. But he has captained his country at Under-19 level. Is that notable enough to satisfy WP:BIO#Special cases?
And for a follow-up question, what if he'd played at Under-19 level but not captained? Or captained at Under-17 level? Where do we draw the line here?
Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. As I understand it, any other criteria is just a helpful pointer as to whether the sources are likely to exist. So, are there multiple non-trivial published works available? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd agree with Nick mallory with the added point that I feel in this day and age, List A players should be given an equal weight as First Class cricketers. As a suitable cut of, maybe youth players should not be included otherwise unless, as mentioned, some exceptional record/other notable feature is present. An extension of Ollie's point is therefore these published works are not likely to be available. –MDCollins (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Had he captained Australia in the Under-19 Word Cup, or scored the highest ever score in an Under-19 international then you could make a case for notability. For this however, you can't. Andrew nixon 09:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phillip Hughes 

message: Has the US ever qualified for the World Cup? I was under the impression that they hadn't, but some has changed United States national cricket team twice to say that they made it in 2003. I thought I'd check here before getting too worked up about it. Thanks.--Eva bd 01:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The only ICC tournament that they qualified for was the 2004 ICC Champions Trophy =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA World Cup? 

message: To save doubling up and to keep a track of progress, I started a new page linked above.  Please join in the fun. —Moondyne 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Destubbing miniproject]] 

message: In my continued quest to make Wikipedia a great resource for American cricket history, I've nominated this image of John Barton King as a featured picture. If anyone would like to make their voice heard on the issue, that can be done here. Thanks.--Eva bd 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[JB King]] FP? 

message: Looking at this article on Mike's father, it contains a fair amount of information, but almost none of it can be verified against the sources given. In particular, a comment that a person has Alzheimer's disease strikes me as something that really does need solid referencing. Can anyone help with that? Also, he's only a couple of months short of his 94th birthday. How does he stand with regard to the list of oldest living (English/overall) first-class cricketers? Loganberry (Talk) 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not heard of any first-class player making it to the biggest century of all.  Not even the Don quite managed that one.  The oldest player I know of is Billy Beldam who was just past his 96th birthday when he died in the 1860s.  --BlackJack | talk page 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There are a few centurions Tintin 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just added a stub (a real one! It needs expansion) for Jim Hutchinson, the longest-lived cricketer of all. Loganberry (Talk) 11:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And Eric Tindill is currently the oldest living Test player. Johnlp 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just beat me to it!  Ted English of Hampshire made it to 102 years old.  Born January 1, 1864, Dorking, Surrey - Died September 5, 1966, Higher Ball Farm, Tiverton, Devon (aged 102 years 247 days). Nick mallory 07:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Horace Brearley]] 

message: Sorry to put in another "hey, why don't we do something about this?" rather than actually doing that something! But... for a long time now, county cricket has simply been a redirect to County Championship. This doesn't really strike me as very satisfactory, particularly when considering a) the days before the CC was established and b) recent years when one-day county cricket has become ever more important. I think we should have a separate "county cricket" article, with the CC itself a "see main article" from there. Loganberry (Talk) 12:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I doubt whether I'll have the time to make a major contribution to the proposed article myself. JH (talk page) 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: An excellent start. One other thing that you might mention is fixtures against touring teams. JH (talk page) 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[County cricket]] 

message: Hi all. I am planning to nom User:The Rambling Man for adminship. My nascent nomination can be seen at User:Dweller/sandbox. As well as all of his other multifarious qualities and contributions, The Rambling Man has done a lot of quality work on cricket articles, including considerable input into three cricket FAs, notably Adam Gilchrist which he did most of the work on (check the article history).
Now, as you're probably aware, Kelly Martin has made a WikiProject nom a criterion for her support. I'm not too bothered about one !vote here or there, but I think it's a great idea to have a WikiProject endorsement of nomination, as it is a terrific way to demonstrate to other editors that there is a measure of trust and respect among a group of active editors.
I would be grateful for your comments as to whether you think that The Rambling Man's nomination deserves the endorsement of this WikiProject.
This is not a vote or a !vote, but an effort to find consensus.
Thanks! --Dweller 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe TRMan is trustworthy and would support the endorsement of the WikiProject. --Dweller 15:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no opinion on whether he would or would not make a good admin, but I think the concept of a WikiProject endorsing someone is a strange one. I think a WikiProject should be merely a meeting and discussion place for editors working in a specific subject area, and should not be regarded as a body in its own right. I would therefore oppose this endorsement, regardless of the merits of the candidate. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but not entirely unexpected opposition! However, the WikiProject does act as an entity, for example, when we establish guidelines for cricket articles and grade articles' importance/quality, so this is not completely peculiar. Further, what harm do you perceive this doing? --Dweller 15:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind, establishing consensus for cricket articles in order to make them more uniform is in a very different category from endorsing or opposing admins as a group. The former is helpful for making a better encyclopaedia; the latter is imposing an authority on the WikiProject which is outside its purpose. I think that the more power (de facto even if not de jure) that is given to small groups of editors, the more danger there is of cliques and groupthink. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with Cliques?--THUGCHILDz 02:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Those were valuable 2 cents we got there. And yeah, I agree.--THUGCHILDz 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Mentioning a new RfA here has certainly been done in the past but we need to be mindful of WP:CANVASS and that some RfA's have derailed or been damaged over that.  A notice here needs to be very neutral and do no more that alert participants to the RfA with a link.   —Moondyne 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Is it regarded as better if someone other than the candidate does it? Is it acceptable for the nominator to do it? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows?  I would say a third party would be the ideal. —Moondyne 12:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: According to WP:CANVASS#Friendly notice:  It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, and absolutely unacceptable if they have asked you to stop.  Since there was a request above, and since the editors here can provide valuable personal knowledge of the nominee in the RfA itself, I think it would be a constructive rather than disruptive action to post a brief notice here, as per WP:CANVASS#Friendly notice.  Thugchild (does your nym refer to a thug who is a child, or the child of a thug? ) above requested the location of the RfA, and it is located at User:Dweller/sandbox for those who are interested in personally co-nominating. FYI,   The Transhumanist     17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm that's an unexpected question but it's chill, well i would say child of a thug and the thug being the world but this isn't supposed to be taken in a negative way or anything. I don't have a negative perception of the world or anything but just that it's a tough world and you gotta do what you gotta do. Anyways about the subject, does any other project endorse their members? If not, I would still think that would be a good idea but if we decide not to, then I agree that we should at least get a notice on the project that a member is running for RFA--THUGCHILDz 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed RfA 

message: I think this conversation needs to develop more and I'm uncomfortable rushing it before it's done. My co-nom for TRM is also uncomfortable; in his case, with the concept. All in all therefore, I'm going to nominate without the WikiProject as a co-nom on this occasion. However, I think it would be useful, particularly in light of Moondyne's comments above, if we continued discussing. Cheers, --Dweller 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning a new RfA here has certainly been done in the past but we need to be mindful of WP:CANVASS and that some RfA's have derailed or been damaged over that.  A notice here needs to be very neutral and do no more that alert participants to the RfA with a link.   —Moondyne 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Is it regarded as better if someone other than the candidate does it? Is it acceptable for the nominator to do it? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows?  I would say a third party would be the ideal. —Moondyne 12:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: According to WP:CANVASS#Friendly notice:  It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, and absolutely unacceptable if they have asked you to stop.  Since there was a request above, and since the editors here can provide valuable personal knowledge of the nominee in the RfA itself, I think it would be a constructive rather than disruptive action to post a brief notice here, as per WP:CANVASS#Friendly notice.  Thugchild (does your nym refer to a thug who is a child, or the child of a thug? ) above requested the location of the RfA, and it is located at User:Dweller/sandbox for those who are interested in personally co-nominating. FYI,   The Transhumanist     17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm that's an unexpected question but it's chill, well i would say child of a thug and the thug being the world but this isn't supposed to be taken in a negative way or anything. I don't have a negative perception of the world or anything but just that it's a tough world and you gotta do what you gotta do. Anyways about the subject, does any other project endorse their members? If not, I would still think that would be a good idea but if we decide not to, then I agree that we should at least get a notice on the project that a member is running for RFA--THUGCHILDz 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On reflection

message: Things seem to have slackened off a little.  Is the West Indian cricket team still aiming for FAC any time soon?  Indian cricket team is perhaps the best article on a Test team - is anyone thinking of polishing it further?  And should bwe pick a player to concentrate on next?  Inzamam-ul-Haq perhaps?  And didn't Muttiah Muralitharan say that he would retire after the 2007 World Cup?  Did he change his mind?
Are we going to try to get Adam Gilchrist on the Main Page for the final of the World Cup?  I guess Harbhajan Singh and Paul Collingwood are off the table for the time being, unless we fancy giving them 27th and 31st birthday presents on 3 July and 26 May respectively? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Murali always said he was going to play for a while. I think, just lodge a request for Gilchrist and tell Raul to scupper it if they lose ot RSA< which I doubt. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Lara would be good. Shall we start? :) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of doing Lara. I tried making a start on it some time ago (it's horribly bloated, and the charts are very out of date) but the main stumbling block for FA will be photos, IMHO. I was planning on getting onto Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) once my current FAC for Norwich City F.C. is over... on the basis that once that goes FA, it'll be a useful argument when the next bozo tries to move Bill O'Reilly (commentator) over the disambig page at Bill O'Reilly on the basis Gee,  no-one's heard of the cricket guy. You cannot be serious or whatever. --Dweller 14:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA push 

message: I wanted to propose this as an AfD, as he doesn't seem to meet our criteria for notability. However the procedure for doing so seems rather complex, and I think I screwed up, so perhaps someone who understands these things could take it over? JH (talk page) 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It isn't that complex, if you just follow the instructions on WP:AFD page. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 19:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. JH (talk page) 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just followed those instructions for Ashley Potter, so hopefully I've managed to produce a valid AfD proposal for him. JH (talk page) 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: AfD here, if anyone is interested. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Andrew Miller (cricketer)]] 

message: Currently trying to go through large amounts of articles and add  to their talk pages. This post in the archives along with this one are particularly useful but there's no clarification as to what importance umpires have.
I'd recommending Elite Panel umpires as mid-high (depending on how many games they have officiated), then those on the International Panel of Umpires as low (bar any particularly special events related to them, not that I can think of any examples). Thoughts? AllynJ 23:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Currently trying to go through large amounts of articles and add  to their talk pages." I've been doing that too, as part of my work on the destubbing exercise. As for umpires, my own feeling is that rating one as high would be exceptional. The umpires are - or should be - less important than the players. Of past umpires, Jim Phillips, Frank Chester and Syd Buller might possibly qualify for a "high" rating. JH (talk page) 09:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dickie Bird? (gosh, I never knew he scored 181* in first-class cricket)?  David Shepherd (umpire)?  (needs a proper cricket infobox, incidentally)  Shakoor Rana? :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket Umpires 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Rambling Man. Whichever way you choose to !vote, I would be glad if you would indicate your membership of this WikiProject. --Dweller 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member RfA 

message: What's the betting on Rashid winning a Test cap by the end of next summer? It's worth keeping an eye on his article for hagiography... it's already beginning to seep in. --Dweller 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's often a particular problem with young, exciting cricketers in that just about everything they do is added to the article. Billy Godleman is in danger of going that way, too. Loganberry (Talk) 22:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You think?  It doesn't mention what he likes for breakfast yet :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lancastrian batsmen! lol --Dweller 15:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Northants bowlers, at the moment!  He is poised overnight to come in next wicket down in Middlesex's second innings. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adil Rashid]] 

message: Godleman has just made his fifth consecutive 50 from debut in first class cricket (now 50* v Derbyshire - no mean feat, he came in at 97-4, so not exactly an easy wicket to bat on / poor bowling). Does anyone know what the record is for consecutive 50s from debut? --Dweller 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone's interested, I can't track down the record, but Godleman fell just a few runs short of his sixth 50 in a row from debut. Suggestions on how to find the record welcome. --Dweller 14:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Billy Godleman]] 

message: Some things need to be updated, like Lara's retirement and the current squad needs to be updated, I can't do it at the moment, sorry! and the Middlesex article needs a "current squad" section Speedboy Salesman 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Indies article, Middlesex article 

message: Would this be a worthwhile category? —Moondyne 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it mean? No-balled once? Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought a mention of the notable culprits wherever the definition of throwing is would suffice. –MDCollins (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Called for throwing" means no-balled one to my ears. Once it's been defined as no-balled in a first-class/List A or higher match or something vaguer such as notably no-balled, I think it would be interesting. I can't see any article on throwing describing all the interesting incidents. Of course there is then the question of whether it is worth having a more general category including those reported under the modern scheme, but I think that is a different question. JPD (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's also players who have been reported to the ICC because of official concerns about their bowling actions but never called in a match nor received sanctions. List of international cricketers called for throwing. So perhaps it needs a broader name.  I'm open to suggestions. —Moondyne 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A lot of that is already fairly well covered in Overarm bowling, so including a link to that article might be a good start. In fact it might be better if any additional material went in that article. JH (talk page) 08:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Cricketers called for throwing]] 

message: I was perusing wicket-keeping (blame today's FA), and found we have a category called Category: cricket skills (or something like that). For some reason, it has seven single-article subcategories. I would suggest these articles get categorised as cricket articles, and as cricket skills article. I don't think it helps much to say "Wicket-keeping" is within a category of articles about wicket-keeping. Not even wicket-keepers fit in there. 60.226.133.172 12:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsense.  The batting, bowling, fielding and captaincy categories each have several articles. There is a sub-category for individual wicketkeepers which is already in the wicketkeeping category (the same applies to all rounders).  The skills category is useful and has potential.  I note that the "suggestion", which doesn't make much sense in parts, has come from an unregistered user.  --GeorgeWilliams 12:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overcategorisation 

message: Since the concept of FAs for important people was brought up, I noted that Australian Cricket Hall of Fame, Wisden Cricketers of the Century and ESPN Legends of Cricket might give a useful idicator. Granted, ESPN might be taken as a joke for some, but it is a useful rough guide anyway. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it was a Donald Bradman XI or Roland Perry XI is a matter of dispute. Tintin 10:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's true. Nick mallory 08:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Acutally, most halls of fame run by countries etc, are usually staffed by the traditionalists and retired players over 70 years old, well at the least the Australian one is, it heavily takes into account the classicists, stylists and innovators, rather than just the modern era sloggers and bashers with their superbats which enable lots of mishits to go for 6 anyway. Of Australia's 27, I only see Border, Lillee, Marsh, Simpson, Chappell and Chappell are post 1965. It has a very healthy amount of pre 1930s innovators like Trumper and Spofforth. I wonder if there is an equivalent for England, since we need to identify the Bosanquets, and similar English stylists and classicists and innovators. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Blnguyen. That should be very useful. It makes it clear how much work there is to do. Having read the Herbert Sutcliffe article, I'm not too surprised to see that the other articles about Yorkshire players also suffer from hagiography. :) JH (talk page) 08:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is Richie Benaud's Greatest XI, chosen by one of the most respected commentators in the world. GizzaChat © 09:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Important biographies"