Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 27

message: When the World Cup begins it should feature on the Main Page as part of "In the News", as a current event we thus need to complete preparations on the 2007 Cricket World Cup page and make it ready for constant updating. Thus we should be able to fill in the results of every match in the few hours after the match is finished. Also it is important we get some Cricket articles to FA for the sake of the World Cup and having some articles there. Cricket World Cup is on Peer Review and is the best one to start with. If you have a good picture a Featured Picture would be nice too. Do you think it'll be necessary to create main articles with more detailed match summaries? Like 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage and 2007 Cricket World Cup Super Eights and 2007 Cricket World Cup finals, or are we going to put all details right into 2007 Cricket World Cup? Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preparing for the World Cup 

message: I recently created and populated this list with almost everything there is on the topic on Cricinfo? I have little to no experience with lists and would like to know what this list needs to get to FL like so many other Cricket-related lists. After I filled it all in I saw the FL List of One-day International records, which takes a different format but covers less specific records. Is it necessary to shape the page in the same way as List of ODI records? Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Cricket World Cup records]] 

message: Is it time to put Cricket World Cup for FAC? Does anyone have objections that need to addressed. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 06:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to comment here discretely, to not get too much negative flak on the main discussion page as is. I think you have to tighten up your stomach up because you are going to cop a lot of stick about the clunkiness of the sentences, awkward English etc. This is almost normal for everybody, unless they have written many FAs and easily too... I am going to fix a few random examples, and explain in the edit summary. If you see Ian Thorpe and its FAC, I got slaughtered a lot even after I fixed it and needed others to fix it for me. You should probably enlist the help of a good copyeditor like Nichalp or ALoan. User:Tony1 is certain to find problems with this that I cannot, and it may be useful to read his FA guide on his userpage and do the exercises. I'm not sure, but perhaps when an articlee is supported by a Wikiproject, a bit of one eyed voting may give it an edge! Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other thing is the sources. Half of the statements in there are not supported by the sources! Especially the history section, there is a link to the 96SF and 03F scorecard and the other results are not sourced. The link in the 99 part is also not good enough since it is taken from a school assignment. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: if any one can provide better sources that would be good--Thugchildz
Thanks for the compliment above :) I have been away for a few days and have not had a chance to review the article, but will do what I can.  Where results are referenced, it should be an easy matter to add a footnote to the relevant scorecard at Cricinfo or CricketArchive. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nichalp told me he's going on vacation till the 4th of Feb. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cricket World Cup]] FAC 

message: I haven't a clue when it comes to images on WP. Can someone find an image for the trophy please? --Dweller 13:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wisden Trophy]] 

message: I should add this to the recent updates section but I think it's too big.  I've been creating hundreds of quick copy stubs offline and a lot of these have been uploaded in the last few days.  As a result, the status of season review articles now is that we have one for every first-class season in each of England, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Zimbabwe.  South Africa has every season to 1920 and every season since 1965 plus a handful in between.  Australia has a few seasons before 1965 and everything since 1965.  India, New Zealand and West Indies each have all seasons since 1965.
As the period before 1965 interests me, I want to take a bit more time over the remainder and so in the short term I'm turning my attention back to the tour reviews with the intention of placing a stub for every Test tour of the last forty years.  I've got a template for this and with some summary data from Wisden I hope to be able to do a bulk upload fairly soon.  I've recently added or edited articles re every Australian tour of England and re every Test tour of Bangladesh.  --BlackJack | talk page 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Good work! Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Seconded; thank you! Loganberry (Talk) 16:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season and Tour Reviews 

message: Am I the only one to be amused by the tremendous amount of activity going on with this article? Maybe some of this energy could be diverted to other needy biography articles! Johnlp 12:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind it at all.  One of the things I like about Wikipedia is the effort people put into to polishing obscure articles. HornetMike 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mike. Let people work on whatever interests them. It's a pity the photos in that article are all copyvios though... Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mark Benson]] 

message: Just to say that User:The Rambling Man and I have joint nom'd this article for GA. --Dweller 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good if someone from this WikiProject could assess the article on its talk page. Ta. --Dweller 09:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nomination for [[West Indian cricket team in England in 1988]] 

message: Hi, in working on the GA candidate article, I noticed that between the 3rd and 4th Tests of 1988, England made seven changes to their XI. Is there a clever website that'll tell me if (as I suspect) that's without parallel for England since 1946? --Dweller 09:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try asking the quiz question: when did England make the most changes between its sides for consecutive matches in a Test series? :) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was my first idea, but I haven't a clue about WillE's current tester! --Dweller 12:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Did it happen in 1946 ? If it is across two series, there are some which are more recent than 1946. For instance, Madras 1951-52 and Leeds 1952 have only three players in common. Tintin 12:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. (NB I only said 1946 as a shorthand for "since the second world war".) Any others with 7 or 8 changes since WWII? --Dweller 12:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That England team in Madras has a very unfamiliar look to it. Was it selected from a squad weakened by withdrawals/injury/illness/bad form or one deliberately selected weak in the first place? --Dweller 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was Ted Graveney and Brian Statham, at least; but England deservedly lost by an innings.  I believe that was India's first Test victory (see the lead of Vijay Hazare, although I doubt the death of George VI on the first day of play had much to do with it...) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have looked at only a few, but there is also an instance of 7 between the last Test of 1963 and the first of 1963-64, and 8 between the last of 1963-64 and the first of 1964. Since England used to send second XIs to the subcontinent till the 1970s (this explains the changes between the 1951-2 and 1952 sides), there could be some more like these, if you consider the instances across series. http://howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Countries/CountryPlayerChart.asp is a good source for checking this sort of this. Tintin 12:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text:   contains the answer to the question. Tintin 12:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks - interesting commentary on the 1884 Australian player dispute, the impact of WSC in West Indies, and the 1988 English Summer of four captains in the replies too... -- ALoan (Talk) 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass changes in selection for England Test team 

message: Greetings friends. I have a question about the importance ratings that are included in assessments. I posted it in the assessment section, but wanted to put it here just to be sure the right people saw it. The WP:CRIC standards are fairly clear on how to rate importance. They say that National captains are generally classed as high importance, and players with many tests are generally classed as mid to high importance. My pet project is currently Bart King. As an American he played no Tests, and I'm not sure if he ever captained a US national side. However, based on his position as the preeminent American cricketer of all time is there any support for him being upgraded to "High Importance" on the project scale? Thanks a lot.--Eva bd 19:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I think I said on the article's Talk page a week or two ago, I would certainly rank him as of High importance. Just because players who captained their country or who played losts of Tests should have a certain ranking, surely doesn't mean that others can't also have that rating if they merit it? After all, what about players who preceded Test cricket? What about notable administrators and writers? JH 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty safe to say that he is of high-importance, for the reasons mentioned here and on the article's talk page. Andrew nixon 20:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bart King]]

message: I just edited the most runs/wickets bit in the infobox of this page. I didn't do anything other than update figures, but for some reason it's broken. I checked the page and I can't see what I've done wrong, so would someone check and try to fix it? Many thanks, HornetMike 22:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking quite hard, I noticed that a ] was missing.  No problem - fixed. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[2006-07 Commonwealth Bank Series]]

message: This page has been vandalised several times by a moron who thinks it's funny that someone he knows has the same name.  It's a similar syndrome to Samuel Britcher.  Can one of you with admin functions please "sprotect" the page for a few weeks?  Thanks.  --BlackJack | talk page 12:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm keeping an eye on the page and will consider sprotection if the anon continues. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 11:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Francis Booker]] 

message: There have been calls in the past, notably by Stephen Turner and Alai, to do something about the huge number of cricket stubs (all right, I know most of them were created by me).  Following on from Alai's suggestion that we categorise stubs, I've expanded his sub-cats by creating extra ones for history, competitions, terminology, media, administration.  I've begun to populate these with the items in the main cricket stub categories and I've reduced the total in there to about 50.  I'll continue with it next time I'm on.  I have de-stubbed quite a lot of articles that are no longer stubs and I've also had to attend to numerous items that had no categories.
If anyone else would like to get involved in this, all help gratefully accepted.  --BlackJack | talk page 14:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll gladly look over :Category:Cricket ground stubs and :Category:Cricket terminology stubs and see what I can do with them. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A large number of the English bio stubs will be a result of my continued plod through Worcestershire's players. I do intend eventually to go back and expand some of those into fuller articles, although I simply don't have enough knowledge to do that with a lot of them - the huge mass of 1920s players, for example. For now, though, I'm going to stick mostly with reducing the number of Worcs redlinks, so the number of such stubs will almost certainly increase still further! Loganberry (Talk) 02:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is great work, but I'm afraid you're supposed to get them discussed at WP:WSS/P first. There are conventions about how many articles you need to make a stub category, naming conventions, and that sort of thing. If you don't you'll find they'll soon be discussed less sympathetically at WP:WSS/D. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in fact, I see they're already on the latter page. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I assume your reply is to Jack rather than me, as it was he who subdivided the stubs: I'm merely making use of the results. But as I'm here: I was under the impression that at least  (which houses the vast majority of my Worcs stubs) had been discussed and accepted already. Should I keep on using it or not? Loganberry (Talk) 00:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my reply was to Jack; apologies if the indentation was misleading. And yes,  was approved some time ago. (This was an example of how the system ideally works: cricket-stub became too big and cricket-bio-stub was split off; and then that became too big, so the largest countries were split off). Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket Stubs 

message: An editor has noticed that there is no article for Cricket in Australia and nominated it for the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight.  I find it impossible to believe that there isn't already an article covering this (as opposed to the Australian team or the history of cricket in Australia).  Is anyone aware of an article that covers cricket in Australia?  --Roisterer 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of ''Cricket in Australia'' article? 

message: There's a question at the reference desk that someone may be able to help with. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diameter of Bails 

message: Hi. I want a consistent usage for this term; basically is it with or without hyphens? List of cricket terms doesn't include it, so I'm inclined to follow the usage of the generic sports topic Man of the match. Anyone strongly dissent? --Dweller 16:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends whether it's a noun or an adjectival phrase. I would write "The man of the match was Paul Collingwood", but "Collingwood won three successive man-of-the-match awards"; although some people might consider the latter a little old-fashioned. I'm fairly sure the noun would never have hyphens, though no doubt somebody will now prove me wrong. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that'll do me. Thanks. --Dweller 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, there's also women's cricket to consider - this is not a problem for use in specific articles, but the fact that the general article is called Man of the match is, I feel, likely to attract some less than approving attention from some quarter eventually. Loganberry (Talk) 00:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man of the match 

message: Does anyone know what's happened to the quiz? WillE 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Typical - soon as I ask it's up and running again... WillE 22:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Quiz 

message: I've initiated a peer review on Paul Collingwood, all comments welcome.  The feature article review for the Windies in England in '88 is also on-going.
On a different note, I've just started looking at Shaun Pollock and noticed what a nightmare all the different template widths are, it looks appalling.  This may have been discussed before, but is there any scope for making all cricket templates, say, 90% width?  I'd interested in your opinions.  The Rambling Man 11:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea - I think that would really improve the look of those over-templated articles. Perhaps they could also be put into a table to keep them looking extra neat? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good, but I'd suggest more like 80% as a lot of the templates fit nicely into two lines if this is used (since most contain a squad listing, or similar).  The Rambling Man 13:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review and templates 

message: I've just created a template for the England world cup squad, like the footballing ones (See Template:England Squad 2006 World Cup) and I am wondering if we should put it on the articles of the players selected and do templates for the other nations, or leave it as it creates too much work and clutter. Just wanted a general consensus. The template is this:
Please post any thoughts. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 10:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion runs against such templates, for the reasons of clutter that you mention, but since we're already using  it would make logical sense. Can you make the colour of your 2007 template match the 2003 one already in existence, though? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 11:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is some discussion higher up the page - see #ICC Champions Trophy Squad templates - where the general consensus - with which I agree - is that these tempaltes add little to a category, compared to the extra clutter that such templates create in the articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No. I think almost everyone in the previous discussion is saying we should delete those that we already have. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If we were keeping it, we could use * and †.  Is there an accepted symbol for vice-captain?  ‡?  **?  Or ⁂ perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I still think they're a mess. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see these are now neater, but I still have a problem with the prospect of boxes for everything: fine for stats stuff (eg the infoboxes for cricketers and teams), but less fine for text lists. I'd much rather use links within the text to separate articles that list squads for particular tournaments. Johnlp 22:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Proposition 

message: I see there is a mix in format of results on this page. Mostly it's "IND by 5 wickets" or "RSA by 34 runs" but there are a number of results where it says "(country's flag) South Africa by 34 runs" etc. Just wondering whether there was a preference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HornetMike (talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the form "South Africa by 34 runs", but without the flags. Mind you, I'd rather see the whole article without those blasted flag icons, but thats a different matter. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 16:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. (The reason why it's so jumbled up is because lots of different people update it; it used to be only me but I've lost interest a bit - I based it on a format used by jguk for the early Tests, if I were to do it again I'd probably just list the scorecard, venue and result (with full team name written out). Sam Vimes | Address me 17:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[International cricket in 2006-07]]