Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 34

message: Judging by this Cricinfo article, we're going to have to take the stats of Zimbabwean cricketers with a pinch of salt now. Not that this surprises me in the least given the state of the game and the country there, but it's depressing nevertheless. Even where scorecards are available, there are inconsistencies all over the place (eg Westerns v Kenya Select XI in April) such as mostly disappeared from first-class scorecards a hundred years ago. Finding reliable and verifiable sources for Zimbabwean cricket seems to be becoming impossible. Loganberry (Talk) 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read that article as well mate, the ICC should strip the Logan Cup of First Class status. Apparently Keith Dabengwa took 7 for 1 in one of the games but I like others question the accuracy of this and thus am wary of putting it on his Wiki page. Crickettragic 23:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CricketArchive has this as its only record of that game. I can't see we can possibly call that thing a reliable source. Given my username I've always taken a slight interest in the Logan Cup, and had helping to improve its article on a list of things to do, but I don't really have the motivation now. Loganberry (Talk) 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes any Zimbabwe Cricket related articles very difficult to write - most written sources have a strong editorial bias and we can't now even rely on the scorecards. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Zimbabwean stats 

message: Can any individual rate an article as an "A"? I thought that for a "GA" rating there was a process that had to be gone through, and therefore that "A", being a higher rating, would also have to go through a similar process. The reason I ask is because Australian cricket team in England in 1902 has just been given an "A". I agree that the article merits it, BTW. JH (talk page) 15:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no process like there is for GA or FA, but I suppose by rating an article as "A" you are implying that it would pass GA if it was put forward. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating Articles "A" for quality 

message: How does one go about the above? I'm a bit new to all this semi-bureaucratic stuff. Found Mehrab Hossain Junior and Mehrab Hossain Jnr - same person (as opposed to Mehrab Hossain who is a different person), two seperate articles, bit unnecessary. Combine all the information in to one and then replace the other with a redirect? I'm not sure. Thanks. AllynJ 21:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, in the immortal words of Mr Punch, that's the way to do it! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus points for the reference, and thank you. :) AllynJ 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging articles 

message: The reference to him bowling with both a legspin and fast-medium action may be erroneous. Can anyone cite an instance of the Big Ship bowling anything other than legspin? Robertson-Glasgow 07:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very quick look didn't come up with anything. What was clear was that in his early career, at least in Tests, he was primarily a middle-order batsman who didn't bowl very much. When he did get on, he was normally the fifth bowler used. A notable exception was at Headingley in 1905, when he opened the bowling. But spinners sometimes did do that back then, so it doesn't really tell us anything about his method. JH (talk page) 09:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Who's Who of Cricketers says: "originally fast medium right-arm, but by 1905 leg-break, bowler" Nigej 10:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Armstrong really ever bowling fast-mediums? 

message: Mostly another collaboration between Dweller and me.  I've been bold and moved Bill O'Reilly over to featured article candidate.  I'd love to have the support (or further comments) of the project, you can add words here.  Thanks!  The Rambling Man 11:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)]] 

message: It's a bit late now to suggest it, but it would be very useful if the WP Cricket template had a "current" parameter which could be set to "yes" for current players, with an appropriate associated category. Then one would be able to see at a glance which players' articles needed updating to reflect their recent achievements. JH (talk page) 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obvious question: how do you define "current"? Loganberry (Talk) 22:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There's an "attention" variable, which is used in similar circumstances to what you're suggesting (eg: Talk:West Indian cricket team in England in 2007). Not sure on whether anything more is really necessary, to be honest. I appreciate the category may also be used for articles that are just in a bad state but I don't think that mixing the two is such a bad idea that splitting them is a necessity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AllynJ (talk • contribs) 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "current", I whosetheir articles will need updating periodically. I don't think that "attention" will quite do what I had in mind, which wasn't to flag articles for immediate action but to act as a reminder that periodic updating will be necessary. Obviously once a player retires, the "current" parameter would need to be removed or set to "no". JH (talk page) 09:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but how do we decide when a player has retired? Take Graham Gooch, for example: he played his last first-class game, for MCC, three years after his penultimate match. Admittedly the change in format for the Friends Provident Trophy has eliminated perhaps the most common potential problem here - where a player retired from first-class county cricket, went to play for a minor county, and then appeared for said minor county at List A level in the NatWest/C&G Trophy. But I can easily imagine a fringe player making a handful of appearances with a year or more between. Loganberry (Talk) 14:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even a retired player will need their article updating periodically if they go on to other things (coaching, media work, writing...) - you might as well make it living rather than active. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point. JH (talk page) 18:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think Watchlistbot will work like that. Also, I think there are more article in categories without the banner than there are articles with banners but no categories. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Cricket template 

message: An IP editor has just replaced all of the cricinfo.com links in the List of Men's Twenty20 International games table with links to www.thetwenty20cup.co.uk.    Two comparative links are old and new.  The the new link does have more advertising (and cricinfo does have some).  There has been a strong tradition at WP:CRIC of using cricinfo, but is that an argument for continuing to do so?   Are we opening a can of worms in allowing (comparatively) advertising heavy sites in place of others with less so?   What do others think?  —Moondyne 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on a closer look, the new one appears to be a straight copy of cricinfo.  —Moondyne 09:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as they work, the site gives the right information, and there's no edit wars, I don't really see any point in favouring one site over another. Makes people think we're not trusting Cricinfo on everything, either. :) Sam Vimes | Address me 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Cricinfo is more useful to the reader in this case because the new site does not have any links to the player page from scorecards. Tintin 09:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links in [[Twenty20]] 

message: Hi., i created a List page - List of ODI Awards for Sachin Tendulkar. I request that peer review is done on the article so that it can be submitted for FL candidature. Link: 1. Kalyan 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that you've put a lot of work into this, and it's a very polished piece of work. But I confess that I'm a little uneasy at the idea of having lists for achievements of individual cricketers. Whilst accepting that Tendulkar probably has more ODI awards than any other cricketer, if we start down that road then where is it going to end? JH (talk page) 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i appreciate your concern. i originally had these lists in the main page of Sachin Tendulkar thus bloating the size of the page to over 60 KB. At that time, i moved the list of ODI awards to a seperate page. If i see a lot of people requesting a merge with Tendulkar's wiki page, i will do the same.As per your question, valid one at that - i think we can set the min. no of awards (lets say 25 for kickstarting a discussion) for having a seperate LIST page. Thus we might have around 5-10 cricketers who will have a list page. The benefit with the list page is that it will reduce the size of the main page.  Would welcome your comments.Kalyan 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with JH, I don't think it's a good idea of having separate lists/articles for individual cricketers. Wouldn't it be possible to merge into Sachin Tendulkar's article? I see that you put good work into it but if you're interested it would be possible to try get his main article into an FA instead of the list. Good work though!--THUGCHILDz 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the first part, see response above.On taking Tendulkar to FA level, i have already worked in adding quite a bit esp on areas like business interests etc. I am hesitant to touch his international career section as it needs quite a bit of effort to summarize his 18 year career. give me a month to bring the content in his international career section to FA level material or better still we can have a collaboration on it.Kalyan 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made some good points. With regard to the length of the main Twndulkar article, I appreciate that there is pressure to keep articles as short as possible, but ideally their lengths should be governed by the importance of the subject and by the amount of information that needs to be put across, rather than by an artificial limit. JH (talk page) 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't think it's a good idea to have achievement separate articles/lists, which the MOM and MOS award pages would be. Instead of going into detail about the matches where he got the awards we could simply put that he won 13 MOS and 53 MOM in his career, 8 in world cup matches, 5 in tournament finals and 5 in games that India lost. So I don't think it's a good idea to have trivia articles/lists.--THUGCHILDz 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the list of MoS and MoM awards are trivia material. i think they are accomplishments and needs to be added the same way. i refered the article of Adam Gilchrist and found that the FA article does have a detailed list of MoM & MoS awards of both test and ODI cricket. As i stated earlier, i am OK with moving it to the main page of Sachin Tendulkar if that is the overall agreement in the forum. Kalyan 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't mean trivia as in unimportant material but as in giving credit to the achievements etc,(I just cant think of the word I'm intending and trivia was the wrong word).--THUGCHILDz 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Makes me wonder how we should handle the list of centuries of Tendulkar in ODI (41) and tests (35)? That is going to wreak havoc to the size of the article. Kalyan 10:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need to list each individual centuy he has made. You can easily sum up the number (and perhaps some interesting statistics) and link to a page on Cricinfo / CricketArchive that does the job just as well. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just set a link to statsguru with the filter set to scores over 100. Tintin 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I somehow am not comfortable with that as most of the other batsmen would have it. For eg., Adam Gilchrist has all his centuries listed and so have quite a few other FA articles. That was my reasoning to spin-off these large stats data into seperate list pages. Kalyan 09:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Request 

message: Someone's nominated Derbyshire batsman Michael Bentley for deletion.  He only played one first class match but he's a bona fide cricketer.  Deletion debate here  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick mallory (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nominator withdrew it. Nick mallory 11:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Class Cricketer up for Deletion 

message: Can someone speedy this, please. Tintin 15:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Hall Cricket Tintin 15:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that again! I've AfD'ed it as the author has already removed a prod. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasn't something similar already been to Afd? If so, it can be speedied as repost. --Dweller 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corridor cricket. I'll speedy tag it. --Dweller 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rezwan Koddus]] 

message: This book-cover image is used in the E. W. Swanton article, but I'm not entirely happy with it. When I first saw it, there was no editorial comment at all relating to the book specifically rather than just its subject, and it's clear that fair use can't be claimed unless there is. So, I notified the uploader (User:PaddyBriggs) that this was necessary. He then added a few words about the book at the end of the article. However, he did not add a detailed fair use rationale to the image page itself. The  template is not, as I first thought, appropriate here as the image was uploaded before 4 May 2006. Nevertheless it seems unsatisfactory to have such an image with no detailed explanation at all. This would also apply to other book-cover images uploaded before that date. Can they just be left, in spite of not really satisfying the "detailed rationale" request? Loganberry (Talk) 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Swanton.jpg]] and book-cover images in general 

message: Below is some discussion on the articles were have (or could have) relating to West Indies cricket up to about 1918. I'm interested at the moment in the structure rather than importance/current content. Nigej 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the 1905 thing, I was under the impression that Cricket Archive was associated with the ACS and hence counting them as the 1905 season is correct. Andrew nixon 08:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I was the person who initiated the recent discussion on "English-summer" West Indian seasons, though in my case I was more concerned with 1958 than 1905. The thing is, though, that since CricketArchive uses "1905" (etc), we definitely have a solid source for that usage. If there is an equally good and verifiable source - an actual ACS publication would be fine - for putting the August 1905 games in "1905-06" then it does indeed come down to a matter of personal judgement, but there does need to be that source, I think. Loganberry (Talk) 17:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! Cricinfo puts the Jamaican games in 1905-05. So, we seem to have one solid source for each usage. All I can say is that I wouldn't personally object at all to using 1905-06, but if we did that then anyone using CricketArchive for seasonal statistics would have to bear in mind that their figures wouldn't tally with Cricinfo's. Loganberry (Talk) 17:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be tempted to stick with Cricket Archive's usage. Check out Basil D'Oliveria's stats on each of them for an example of inaccurate stats on cricinfo. Andrew nixon 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've recently started using CA rather than Cricinfo for my "source" link on bio page infoboxes, since I was encountering a lot of discrepancies. Loganberry (Talk) 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Indies Cricket to 1918 

message: Most people (including me) have tended to link to the Cricinfo player page when filling in the "source" link on a cricketer's infobox, but recently I've decided to switch to using CricketArchive instead. I was prompted by the subjects of three successive bios I wrote (Herbert Gordon, William Adshead and Percival Corbett) having discrepancies between the two: career catches in the case of Gordon and Adshead, and career balls bowled in the case of Corbett.
The more I thought about it, the more I felt that CricketArchive was generally the better source, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it tends to have more detailed summary statistics than Cricinfo, especially for older players (CA usually includes total balls bowled and half-centuries; Cricinfo sometimes does not) and secondly, there is the facility which Cricinfo mostly lacks to check individual scorecards, season-by-season summaries etc. On top of this, the infobox "debut" and "last match" lines expect specific dates, something not checkable on Cricinfo which gives only first and last seasons. Loganberry (Talk) 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you on this, as I mentioned above. For example, a bunch of South African matches from the 70s and 80s (mainly the non-white league) have recently been promoted to first-class status, and cricinfo have not updated their database to reflect this, leaving players as high profile as Basil D'Oliveria and Omar Henry with inaccurate stats on cricinfo. Henry's FC career started four years before cricinfo says it did. Andrew nixon 06:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I suspect Cricinfo data will get more and more out of date. Philip Bailey has moved onto CricketArchive, so I would always go with CA for the "state of the art" stats. Obviously there will always be uncertainty (for example where one scorebook has X taking a certain catch and the other scorebook has Y) and those who prefer 'traditional' figures (eg for Grace,Hobbs) will be disappointed. Nigej 08:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do in fact have an article, which I believe you created, entitled Traditional career totals which discusses this exact point, and a quick check at Jack Hobbs shows that it's mentioned in that article as well. For disputed stats of that significance, I think that's the best way: to pick one (say CA) for the states but to discuss any other major sources in the text. Loganberry (Talk) 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest linking to both.  Cricinfo has the advantage of a potted bio, and easy access to news articles and Wisden write-ups. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem linking to cricinfo for biographical details and such, I think the question is whether we should use it for stats or not. For stats, we should use the most accurate source, which has to be Cricket Archive. Andrew nixon 09:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always put both in the "External links" section at the bottom of an article, quite apart from specific references, so I agree that both sites can be useful. Cricinfo is considerably better for articles, and has some very useful stuff there, but is considerably worse for stats; as was mentioned here not so long ago, many of Cricinfo's records lists are five years out of date and show no sign of being updated. But for the specific link in the infobox, CricketArchive is better - if only because Cricinfo does not include specific dates for start/end of career, so if we link to that our dates on the infobox are not properly verifiable. (In any case, when you get a player like Kingsmill Key, who captained Surrey in the 1890s, but who Cricinfo claims ended his career in 1887, it does tend to colour your opinions!)  Loganberry (Talk) 15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CricketArchive or Cricinfo? 

message: Since a comment from Blnguyen at my editor review, I've been occasionally dropping into cricket bios and editing for POV etc. Today, I encountered Graham Dilley which has been the subject of a lot of work, but has stunning contradictions and is full of awful English. Anyone wishing to help gratefully welcomed. --Dweller 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for a start those photos have seriously unconvincing  tags. "I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." - yes, and "scanning them yourself" makes them PD, does it? Sadly it looks as though they'll all have to go. Loganberry (Talk) 15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated the photos with no other info for deletion, though I'd forgotten what a fiddly process that was so I hope I got it right! I did leave un-nominated a couple of pics which the uploader said were taken by his (now dead) uncle, as I wasn't sure about those, but I've nevertheless taken them off the Dilley article to be safe. Loganberry (Talk) 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Graham Dilley]] 

message: :Apologies to anyone reading this twice - I'm copying this here for greater exposure:
Back in 2005, Portal:Cricket was the very first portal in the Portal: namespace, and one of the first featured portals. Things have since gone a bit stale, and I think that now it's time for an update. To that end I have been working on Portal:Cricket/Redesign. It's by no means a finished work, but it gives the gist of what I am aiming for.
With your approval, I'd like to merge the redesigned page into the main space. I plan on moving the content that is currently on the portal page and not in the redesign onto a subpage which will be prominently linked - in a similar manner to Portal:Australia for example. I'm also planning on implementing automatic methods of keeping content fresh where possible, and keeping the rest updated myself (any help of course appreciated!). It will be easier to implement the rest once the main portal page is updated.
I hope this is too everyone's liking, but please do leave your comments and criticisms at Portal talk:Cricket#Redesign (or just go and improve it yourself!). If there's no opposition, I'll go ahead and merge into the main portal page. Cheers, →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea.  We have User:jguk to thank for the existing portal, but fresh ideas are always welcome.  I have commented at Portal talk:Cricket/Redesign. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Cricket/Redesign]] 

message: According to Cricinfo, he's just been named as one of England's 12th "men" for this Test, in between appointments with Ireland. That's nice and quirky. --Dweller 10:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope he has nothing do with User:Eionmorgan who I have been reverting recently ! Tintin 10:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happened before, Frederik Klokker fielded for England a few years back. Andrew nixon 11:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Trevor Penney Nick mallory 11:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eoin Morgan]] 

message: I made major clean-ups to the article of Mahendra Singh Dhoni and submitted a peer review (click here to access it). please provide me your comments as i would like to take it to FAC soon. Kalyan 08:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request - MS Dhoni 

message: I've heard/seen more and more people refering to ICC rather than the ICC. I've always said "The ICC", and that sounds much more gramatically correct. Which should we be using? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the context. "Many people criticised the ICC" (example), I definitely wouldn't capitalise the t. I can't really think of any situation where not putting the in front makes grammatical sense, though. AllynJ 13:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the question is about capitalisation, but about omitting the article altogether. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "The ICC", definitely. Omitting the definite article sounds very unnatural to me. Are the people doing that native English speakers? Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When talking about the ICC, it should be "the ICC". Of course, that doesn't every occurrence of ICC needs the definite article - you could speak of "ICC CEO Malcolm Speed", "an ICC tournament", or something like that. JPD (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICC or The ICC 

message: Might be worth keeping an eye on Prior's article. As it stands, a single innings (as yet uncompleted as England have not declared at the time of writing) accounts for no fewer than three paragraphs. Certainly it was a notable innings, but I can't help feeling that this level of detail might be overkill! Some of it's editorialising anyway. Loganberry (Talk) 22:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; that's much better. Loganberry (Talk) 14:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Matthew Prior (cricketer)]] 

message: Browsing the county scores while listening to the Test (go Monty!) I notice that Northamptonshire are fielding more foreign born players than players born in England.  Jacobs, Van der Wath and Klusner are South African, Wessels and Crook were born in Australia and even former England test player Usman Afzaal was born in Pakistan.  In these days of kolpak madness has a county ever fielded even more foreign born players than this? Nick mallory 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ISTR that there was one season in the 1970s when Warwickshire had five West Indians in their side. JH (talk page) 14:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Northamptonshire's opponents Durham might give them a run for their money if this criteria decided the game. Garry Park was born in South Africa, Ottis Gibson in Barbados, Breese in Jamaica, Coetzer in Scotland, Benkenstein in Zimbabwe and Di Venuto in Australia Crickettragic 14:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warwickshire's team today feature's Trott, Steyn and Groenewald (South Africa), Streak (Zimbabwe), Ambrose (Australia) and Sangakkara (Sri Lanka). Nick mallory 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most foreign born players in a county side? 

message: I created this page yesterday to accompany record lists we already have for first class/ODI/Test cricket. Used CricketArchive but although they were up to date they did lack alot of stats such as 'fastest ton'. Such records are available on Cricinfo but according to the pages their 
List A data has not been updated since 2002. As a result I am reluctant to add them to the list. Does anyone know of any other sites that might be usefull? Cheers
Crickettragic 01:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Howstat is great, but they only do Tests and ODIs. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of List A cricket records]] 

message: Just discovered this page when looking through Category:American cricketers. It mentions that he is captain of the Queensland Bulls so it seems that it is a simple case of the author mixing him up with Jimmy Maher. What is puzzeling however is the fact that he is listed as an American cricketer. Crickettragic 09:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The history suggest it really is a simple misspelling, with another mistake by the person adding the category. I have redirected the article to Jimmy Maher. JPD (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jimmy Magher]]