Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 24

message: We have two articles for the same player!
*Chris Taylor (cricketer)
*Christopher Taylor (cricketer)
Obviously one article should be reduced to being merely a redirect to the other. But which should stay and which should go?
:How about merging the two articles into a article?? Rakuten06 22:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as though some kind person has beaten me to it and has done the necessary. JH 10:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Taylor 

message: Anyone who knows and understands anything about cricket will agree that underarm bowling is a key historical topic whose importance in that context completely outweighs the ludicrous and typically Chappell incident in 1981.  But, as I would expect, there are some who insist that this incident is far more important than the fact that cricket would never have begun if people in the distant past had not used an underarm bowling action to try and knock over a two stump wicket.
I have therefore followed precedent where a controversial incident is deemed worthy of inclusion on the site by giving it its own article so that Underarm bowling can reclaim its rightful place as a historical article to be developed according to its context and perspective in historical terms and not in the terms of modern media sensationalism.  
Incidentally, I doubt if underarm bowling was used much (i.e., legitimately), if ever, by first-class teams in Australia or New Zealand, hence the article does not belong in the categories covering the histories of those countries.  
The new article is called Underhand bowling incident 1981 if anyone can be bothered to read it.  --BlackJack | talk page 19:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right: GS-H's Wisden bio, repeated on his Cricinfo profile says that he "seldom flighted the ball like the ordinary lob bowler" and was "quite unusual with the speed at which he could make the ball, delivered with low trajectory, break from the off". You're also right that his article is unacceptably stubby at the moment for a Test player and county captain. Since he was a Worcestershire player (among many other things) I'll get to him at some point if nobody else does, but I have a lot on my plate at the moment (non-Wikipedia matters) and most of the time can't really concentrate for the sustained period necessary to write a long bio. He is on the list, though! Loganberry (Talk) 04:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As I type this, Jack's edit has been reverted, which is a shame as I think he was right. However, I suspect that this will happen again if he repeats the removal. One possible solution might be to include a short (one-para) summary of the 1981 incident in Underarm bowling and use the  template to direct those interested to the article dealing specifically with 1981. As for the title of the specialist article, I think the use "underhand" is very clever, but I do wonder whether someone's going to protest that it's POV! Loganberry (Talk) 04:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added GS-H to the underarm article as he belongs there.  I've also sent Chappell back to his own article and said why on the article's talk page.  --BlackJack | talk page 07:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Jack's version of the article was better too, although I also agree with Loganberry's suggestion that it should have a paragraph in Underarm bowling, and use . I also don't like "underhand": it's witty, but the article title should be a plain description. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The incident is both important enough for its own article, and insignificant enough to not dominate the main article. It definitely should be covered in the modern game section, although I'd rather see it integrated with teh rest of the section, as it was this incident that led to underarm bowling being officially not allowed by playing conditions and ultimately to a change in the laws. JPD (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underarm bowling 

message: I've had John Days tagged by an anon editor with the  template, with an edit summary of "Is Wikipedia the dumping ground for all Wisden trivia?" I've pointed to the notability guidelines for sportspeople (I suspect pointing to our own guidelines would have elicited "But you're biased!" or similar) and will certainly fight any AfD listing. Yes, the Days article is a stub, but it's not all that stubby.
The editor in question has replied on my User talk page thus: "There appears to be no lower limit on what counts as "notability" in Wikipedia therefore. It's one huge dumpbin of crap where actual notable knowledge and history is diluted to homeopathic undetectability. The fact that John Days is even mentioned is because he's in Wisden, but then lots of people are - it doesn't make them notable."
Loganberry (Talk) 12:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore him, and don't take his comments personally. He's out of step with WP:BIO. I've removed the template. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would ignore him as well. He's been putting notability tags on things like Haiti en Marche too; I'll readily admit that the article is poor and that I had no knowledge about the newspaper before, but surely you've got to go pretty low before a newspaper with considerable circulation and so forth isn't notable. Sam Vimes | Address me 12:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is probably heresy here, but I do think that he has a point. Days would merit an article in a hypothetical cricket-only Wiki, but I'm not convinced that he does in a general encyclopaedia covering all subjects. JH 18:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think my reply to you would be the old "Wikipedia is not paper" one. If Britannica had the effectively unlimited space that Wikipedia does, and if accessing such information were as easy as it is here, and if they had an editor who was willing to write such articles, then I rather think someone like Days would be included. (I know Britannica has a website, but they still have the staff problem.) Loganberry (Talk) 14:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As long as he is in keeping with the WikiProject guidelines, you can assert notability.  That won't save an article from an AFD, but it's grounds to disagree with a  tag.  That said, we don't need to have articles on every single player that we could have (though personally I think it would be in keeping with the broad goals of the encyclopaedia project - after all, re-users don't have to include all of our content).  Guettarda 18:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First-class cricket is good enough.Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability again 

message: I took this photo along with many others of the English team training at Adelaide Oval yesterday. I'm sort of tempted to put it on the encyclopedia article, but that would appear POV since this is a training incident when he was hitting balls with Chris Read. Anyway, it's here for public viewing. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work on providing so many free pictures, Blnguyen! Thanks! Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A picture I had to share 

message: I just found a new stub re this All-England batsman and once again someone had stuck a notability tab on it.  I've expanded the article a bit using what I know of Diver and I've removed the tab.  --BlackJack | talk page 10:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack, it would be useful if you could make a note of your source. If you always do this, it should lessen the number of notability tags you get, jguk 11:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't my stub.  I found it with the notability tag already attached.  I didn't recognise the original author's name and it seems the basic info was lifted from a talk page somewhere.  My source for what I added is me: I just wrote what I know.  Anyway, I've got Diver in my list of 19th century players to be researched so I'll keep an eye on him and add more in due course.  --BlackJack | talk page 19:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added the Cricinfo and CricketArchive pages about Diver as external links. With a few exceptions (see the John Days discussion above!) putting those in tends to keep the notability tags away, since it does at least prove to a non-specialist reader that the person existed! Loganberry (Talk) 22:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alfred Diver]] 

message: Re the above, that is fascinating.  Does the same rule apply to photos taken in GB before 1955?  If so, I will start downloading some.  --BlackJack | talk page 09:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unfortunately not, only photos taken in Australia. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pity.  What is the rule re British photos?  Is there a cutoff date or are they all subject to copyright for evermore?  --BlackJack | talk page 10:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've mentioned this in passing before, but is there any chance that any British cricket photos might have been Crown Copyright? If so, the cut-off for that is 50 years, and so it would be acceptable for 1955 and earlier photos to be used, regardless of the photographer's status. Conceivably some sort of tub-thumping "What makes Britain great" publication from WW2 or the immediate post-war period might have such cricket pictures? Loganberry (Talk) 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have bookmarked this PDF — http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/private.pdf — which (if accurate) suggests that it's 70 years after the death of the photographer, if the photographer is known, or else 70 years after first publication. So photos published before 1936 would be OK if the photographer is not known. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real reference is the Copyright Act (as amended) and statutory instruments made under that Act (which in turn apply EU directives). I believe Stephen is right though - it's 70 years after the death of the photographer, if known - otherwise from 1 January following the date on which it was taken, if unknown (with this date changing to 70 years after the death of the photographer if you later learn who he was). jguk 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That "known" could be a problem, since as jguk points out, if the photographer's identity in the case of a particular copyrighted image becomes known, and if that photographer died in 1936 or after, we will presumably have to instantly remove that image (unless fair use can be claimed). But, at the risk of sounding like Donald Rumsfeld: how known does that "known" have to be? In other words, how much effort is "every effort" to determine a photographer's identity and date of death? Loganberry (Talk) 00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old English photos

message: Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket for the possible deletion of an article about Adnan Ilyas, a cricketer from Pakistan who plays for the Oman national team. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one looks very non-notable despite satisfying our norms. Maybe we should take another look at the eligibility criteria. Tintin (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I sometimes rather wish the ICC Trophy had not gained List A status; then we wouldn't have this problem! I've settled on "weak keep", though, since I don't think it does any harm to have an article about him, and since whatever people might think of the ICC's decision (I'm not happy about it), their granting of List A status to the 2005 Trophy means that the man has played seven such games. Loganberry (Talk) 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket]] 

message: Sydney Riot of 1879 is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please help bring this article to current featured article quality. --RelHistBuff 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sydney Riot of 1879]]

message: This image is tagged with CC-ShareAlike 2.5. This is obviously not true, as it's been nabbed straight from the World Cup site: . I'd like to delete it straight away, but this is apparently not the done thing...can anyone with a bit more guts or knowledge of the image tagging rules sort that out? Thanks! Sam Vimes | Address me 23:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:PUI, I've tagged it with  and listed at same. Thanks. — Moondyne 02:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that there's no need for WP:PUI any more, because "Blatant copyright infringement" can now be deleted by an administrator on sight. I've listed it at CAT:CSD. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:VivRichardStadium 01.JPG]]

message: I'm posting here after a very long time. Just wondering what the project's current goals are. We seem to have run out of new featured material. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there's any risk of running out of things to do. Many notable players and events still only have articles that are stubs, in some cases no more than a couple of sentences, whilst many significant players who never played international cricket still don't have an article at all. JH 09:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm working on getting at least a workable stub together on all women international cricketers. See List of English women Test cricketers for progress to date. Anyone wishing to help would be most welcome. And once it is complete, we should have some more featured lists. jguk 12:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When dealing with international cricketers, perhaps one of the best places to start is any player red-links in the articles in , in particular those who hold records. Andrew nixon 17:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project goals 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Terry Alderman shows he bowled 10,181 overs which I think is wrong.  Could someone check the template parameters as the label should say Balls, not Overs.  I cannot see what's causing that (no doubt it'll be obvious). — Moondyne 07:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. It looks like someone changed the syntax of the infobox so you now have to write balls=true instead of oversORballs=balls. I see this happened on 15 January although I wasn't aware of it. It's probably an improvement, but they never announced it here, or changed it on all the cricketers who are using the old syntax. I'll try and get CricketBot onto it some time. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was mentioned, here, but unfortunately I don't think anyone picked up on it much. If you are able to perhaps count how many still use oversORballs compared to updated ones, it might be worthwhile changing back to oversORballs now that there is a method for "if" statements in templates... – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. There should be no oversORballs=balls left now. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OTOH, if you use balls then you don't have to worry about how many baals there were in the over, a particular problem if a player's career spanned a change in the number of balls per over. JH 18:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Infobox Cricketer

message: I've created a stub on Kashif Ahmed and someone has questioned his notability. This is a player who has played 37 first-class and 21 List A matches, played for Pakistan at the Commonwealth Games, and played in the Intercontinental Cup for the UAE. Now I think this is notable enough. However someone obviously disagrees with me. Can someone set the person straight? Andrew nixon 23:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not the best wording "set this person straight", but I do agree that there are no issues with being able to write an article about the person. Hence I removed the tag again. Ansell 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, this keeps coming up. You just need to cite WP:BIO which says that "Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing" are automatically notable. And our own guidelines which say that for cricket that means a first-class or List A match. But it's probably better to concentrate on WP:BIO because that's a project-wide guideline, so can't be portrayed as biased towards inclusion of our favourite topic. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing. Last time this came up, I think someone pointed out that including good references can help to convince the casual reader that the person is notable. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. With film stars etc, pointing to the IMDB entry for the person helps. The Cricinfo equivalent probably will too. Fact is that a huge proportion of Wikipedians are American and cricket seems to be a joke in that culture. I'd guess if I read that someone represented their county at, I dunno, erm, ploughing, I might question notability. If cricket is deemed trivial, then our 1st class cricketers are probably unfathomably irrelevant. --Dweller 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently created stubs for all participants in the cricket at the 1900 Olympics, and I had someone question the notability of one of the British players who, of course, won the gold medal. I mean, I'd have thought being an Olympic gold medalist was considered notable! It was settled thoughAndrew nixon 13:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hardly a big deal. Someone claimed that Dulip Samaraweera with half a dozen Tests was not notable, so just remove the tag and tell them.Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability problem 

message: I'm thinking of including team colours to the Infobox Test team and Infobox non test cricket team. How does this sound? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Make sure you point out that the colours only refers to ODIs and not Tests. GizzaChat © 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is test specific. But isn't it true that the team wears their colours on helmets and the borders of sweaters? =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Aussies wear (baggy) green caps in Test cricket, but their ODI pyjamas are yellow. Ollie 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a bit more complicated than that now that their "shirt" is green. Also the Indian helmet is dark blue instead of the ODI lighter blue. GizzaChat © 03:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  team colours 

message: I have attempted to draw some logos in the svg format:
Feedback appreciated. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They look very nice! What's the copyright situation, though? The  tag says that to claim fair use, logos must be "low-resolution"... but how does that criterion apply to vector images such as those in SVG format? Loganberry (Talk) 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I had raised the issue with Raul and Brad Patrick (both ORTS members; and Brad our wiki lawyer). Brad's reply was in typical legalspeak... nothing explicit. So, from the context of what I understood, he had no clear idea on the legal issue of vector formats. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does ORTS mean? Loganberry (Talk) 13:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry spelling error. It should be OTRS (Open-source Ticket Request System) See OTRS. Its the team that responds to public queries and comments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos 

message: Nearly every photograph available online or in printed media (books, magazines, newspapers) is protected by copyright.  This stands in the way of efforts to create high-standard biographical articles on Wikipedia.  However it is highly likely that many Wikipedia editors have personally-taken photographs of players and this project would be advanced greatly if more of those photos were "donated" under free licence. Darcyj 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flickr can be useful, if you're careful to use the advanced search and to tick all three of the Creative Commons boxes at the bottom (otherwise you get non-commercial-only pics, which are no use to us). Searching for "cricket" brings up these results - lots of pictures of insects, but plenty of our sort of cricket too. I found the picture used on the Twenty20 article there. (NB: there appear to be a couple more hoops to jump through with Flickr images now than there were when I uploaded that one.) Loganberry (Talk) 13:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Someone (from IP addresses in the 210.55.X.X range) is creating new articles for cricket players at their talk pages. See for example, Talk:Amandeep Singh and Talk:Abe Bailey among many others. I moved one, but don't want to spend the time fixing them all, especially since I don't know if the information is good. I've asked at the help desk if there's any way to contact this person and teach them how to create pages properly. You can find the pages by looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Articles and following the red links. Ingrid 02:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've taken the words right off my keyboard.  Yesterday I found John Willes in its own talk page but, as this player was on my to-do list, I expanded it and stored it as an article.  There have been recent examples with Diver and carpenter that I know of too. --BlackJack | talk page 07:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Talk:Barrie Meyer is another example, but I didn't think there was much point moving it until the article could be expanded from its current substub size. JH 10:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, that means the vegan vandal is back. He completely ignores any attempt to educate him. And in the past some of his edits have been true vandalism, particularly adding :Category:Vegans to random people, and adding nonsense to Darryl Strawberry. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles created at their talk page 

message: I've just gone through and added a heap of references to Bodyline, hitting all the citation needed spots. However, there are still a couple of statements in there that will probably be picked out before we can get it relisted as a Featured Article. Please check the Talk:Bodyline page and see if you can help get this page re-Featured. -dmmaus 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bodyline references