Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 16

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? I noticed your (impressive) list of Featured Articles, are there any others ( or B-class articles)? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion below and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Version 1.0 articles -- Ian ≡ talk 14:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: Gene Nygaard's edit here proposes a compromise solution: catgeorize as last name, first name outside cricket related categories, and preserve current categorization of article title within cricket related categories. I'm willing to adopt this as a provisional guideline. Any opinions? --Muchness 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, fine by me. Until someone proves this one way or the other, I agree. Sam Vimes 08:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note that Gene Nygaard is still reverting over this. If anyone feels strongly about this issue, by all means patrol the affected articles for changes. I've requested third party opinions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, but I feel it's pointless to edit war over this issue. --Muchness 14:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed compromise

message: A day or so ago I did some stub-sorting of the main cricketbio stub category, and I must say I admired the work that has been put into these articles. Virtually every one was well-organized, well-written, and contained all the relevant information in an easy-to-find area. I offer my compliments to the members of this project for their hard work and effort. Crystallina 20:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliments 

message: FYI, Sydney Riot of 1879 is the featured article on the WP Main Page today. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you really have to wonder if it's worth it considering the bombardment from vandals it's getting :( -- Ian ≡ talk 03:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have long thought that front-page articles should be protected. Now that we have semi-protection, that really does seem like an obvious solution. Has this been discussed anywhere? Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. See User:Raul654/protection for the reasons why it's not going to happen. Sam Vimes 14:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the rationale is that some of those vandals may become real contributors.  I certainly started out editing things that were linked from the Main Page, but that was in a quieter age :) It should cease to be an issue if/when we get stable versions: the non-stable "current draft" version is likely to continue to be vandalised in the background, but the "live" version that everyone sees won't. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Which reminds me, did anyone reply to that kind request from the WP:1.0 team further up the page? I know I didn't - I find it hard to validate articles I've been greatly involved in - but it's a good idea. Sam Vimes 12:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main page

message: added stubs on Gurusinha and chucking. Lesliestng 02:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asanka Gurusinha & Throwing 

message: In response to the request from above from the Version 1.0 assessment team, I've started a new subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Version 1.0 articles for which I would encourage nominations.  This project is a fantastic initiative which aims to identify a set of articles that would be suitable for release in print, CD and DVD.
If you can think of any good quality cricket related articles which aren't yet featured articles (I've already listed those) then drop them into either of the A-class or B-class columns. This is not a final list and no-one is going to grill you to justify your choices. I'd like to see 50 20 or so articles in each category. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That list is great! We have a list of such "good" articles from Wikiprojects here but, as other projects have done, you're free to have you separate page. To answer your question, yes, lists are eligible. Thanks. :) Gflores Talk 15:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: Added stub on Alvin Kallicharan. Lesliestng 19:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Lesliestng, it's good to know about new articles, and thanks for telling us, but in fact we have a place to add them on the project page. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'm still relatively new here so I didn't know about that. I'll add them there from now on. Lesliestng 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alvin Kallicharan 

message: Three minutes after I created Gerard Rotherham, one of the 38 missing Wisden Cricketers of the Year, it was nominated for deletion. Project members might like to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Rotherham. Johnlp 22:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been speedily taken off the deletion list after a vote from many WP:Cricket participants (and others too) in favour of keeping. I suspect that Gerard Rotherham has had more attention paid to his cricketing prowess in the past 36 hours than in the previous 75 years! Johnlp 10:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD on Wisden Cricketer of the Year 

message: Bill (no relation) is Australia's oldest living cricketer and was a member of The Invincibles 1948 team. He's now 94 and is sharp as a tack. I've heard him being interviwed on the radio a few times recently and he's had a fascinating cricket life.  His stubby article is embarassing, but I cannot find much in print about him, possibly because he was often in the shadow of giants like Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Harvey et al. As he won't be around for too much longer (one assumes), could members check their libraries and see what can be added? -- Ian ≡ talk 01:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bill Brown (cricketer)]]

message: Do we get a tickertape parade for eliminating redlinks on List of Test cricketers? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait till we've cleaned out the substubs first, eh? Sam Vimes 18:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoilsport ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the process of making a new list of sub-stubs, by the way, although I probably won't finish until tomorrow. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I've done something very wrong, we've acquired another 1000 sub-stubs since I last generated the list a month and a half ago. :-( Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a tribute to the sterling work Paul has done on creating infoboxes for everyone who ever lifted a bat or picked up a ball internationally. Johnlp 14:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. It was just rather more than I'd imagined. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that all the Test players have infoboxes, that should be possible, but I'm not likely to get round to it for some time. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Test bios

message: Hooray!  . Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A question that bugged me the whole time (but I never bothered to find the answer to) - if a supersub isn't used, does it count as them having played an ODI? And what if a player in the starting XI is "subbed off" before they bat in the first innings, not having done anything? Agreed, though, hooray! :D AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 23:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another Hooray! It would be good if the ICC also end the power-plays, they are always used at the start and means that the bowlers have to bowl within the fielding restrictions for five more unnecessary overs, giving away extra runs.  DaGizzaChat © 11:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more super-subs 

message: On a lighter note, I wonder how many people in in Project think that the emergence of the twenty20 scene is good for international cricket - cheap charade or a serious attempt at adaptation to changing attitudes? Lesliestng 04:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a great idea as an occasional spectacle, to get spectators interested and to make some money. One or two games per tour is about right, and I would love to see it in the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games too. But I fear that the ICC and the national cricket boards will get greedy and we'll start seeing seven-match series every tour, and I think that would damage the rest of cricket. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll hate to see the side-effects on the international game of the new version. Being a spin-bowling all-rounder for my school's cricket club and having the rules changed to worse than Twenty20 style (in our competition there is a wierd rule allowing only eight fielders on at a time as well as other Twenty20 rules!), bowling seems more of a "Can't wait 'til its over" or "get it out of the way" job and batting is just swinging with enough power so that even an edge will go for six!  DaGizzaChat © 11:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure you are not playing baseball? (Just kidding, just.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is also the "exciting" innovation of the bowl-out (he said, pluggin his new article). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It was me who suggested talking about it here first. You can see what it would look like at , for example. I'll write my views later, because I haven't got time now. Anyone else got some views first? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Did no-one else want to comment about this? I was unsure when I first saw it, and could see arguments on both sides. But after thinking about it for a while, I decided I preferred the current box with only the Tests and ODIs, at least in the short term. At the moment, international Twenty20 seems not to be taken very seriously. Also, no-one's played enough matches yet to have any kind of meaningful average. Does anyone else have an opinion though? Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With India looking to boycott the twenty20 championship and seeking to convince other Asian nations to do the same, it will be interesting to see the outcome. I agree that there haven't been enough matches played as well. However, if the controversies are resolved, and all the countries start playing matches more frequently, the teplate will definitely be warranted. Waiting it out a little bit seems to be a good option for me. Lesliestng 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be inclined to wait until there's been a lot more of them. Averages and other conventional stats are, I suspect, less important in this form of cricket than strike rates and economy rates (and maybe win percentages). Johnlp 09:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a thought but I wonder in the future whether there will be Twenty20 "Specialists," in which Twenty20 will be the only international form some players play (Shahid Afridi, Andrew Symonds and Mahendra Dhoni mimics!) If it turns out to be a high number then a separate template may have to be considered.  DaGizzaChat © 10:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, best to wait for now. --Muchness 14:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, we should wait unless enough match played. -- Shyam (T/C) 15:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twenty20 

message: Do we require a new Infobox for cricketer as now Twenty20 also started. I have created a new template Template:Infobox Modern Cricketer and started editing some Cricketer's pages too but someone suggested to talk about this issue here. Please put your views so that we can proceed. Thanks -- Shyam (T/C) 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was me who suggested talking about it here first. You can see what it would look like at , for example. I'll write my views later, because I haven't got time now. Anyone else got some views first? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Did no-one else want to comment about this? I was unsure when I first saw it, and could see arguments on both sides. But after thinking about it for a while, I decided I preferred the current box with only the Tests and ODIs, at least in the short term. At the moment, international Twenty20 seems not to be taken very seriously. Also, no-one's played enough matches yet to have any kind of meaningful average. Does anyone else have an opinion though? Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With India looking to boycott the twenty20 championship and seeking to convince other Asian nations to do the same, it will be interesting to see the outcome. I agree that there haven't been enough matches played as well. However, if the controversies are resolved, and all the countries start playing matches more frequently, the teplate will definitely be warranted. Waiting it out a little bit seems to be a good option for me. Lesliestng 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be inclined to wait until there's been a lot more of them. Averages and other conventional stats are, I suspect, less important in this form of cricket than strike rates and economy rates (and maybe win percentages). Johnlp 09:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a thought but I wonder in the future whether there will be Twenty20 "Specialists," in which Twenty20 will be the only international form some players play (Shahid Afridi, Andrew Symonds and Mahendra Dhoni mimics!) If it turns out to be a high number then a separate template may have to be considered.  DaGizzaChat © 10:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, best to wait for now. --Muchness 14:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, we should wait unless enough match played. -- Shyam (T/C) 15:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Twenty20 Infobox

message: The Invincibles needs disambiguation. See discussion at Talk:The_Invincibles#Dab_again. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Invincibles disambiguation 

message: The rules of cricket are legislated by the MCC. What rules are the ICC responsible for? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, the ICC are responsible for the playing conditions of all international cricket (which sometimes adds to the Laws and sometimes even contradicts them). Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICC / MCC -- Separation of powers 

message: I've just put a  marker on Rahul Dravid. Anyone want to have a go at cleaning it up?
Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is almost pointless to try and NPOVize the articles on contemporary Indian and Pakistani cricketers because within a few minutes someone else will come along and add new POVs. Tintin (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have some sympathy with this point of view, but at least if we have a good base, the article can be reverted. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just reverted it, because all the dubious comments were added in after 19/2/2006, after his stats were last updated for the 5th ODI. There isn't a need for them, because there haven't been any important changes in DRavid's career during the tour to Pakistan, except accumulation of more runs and wins. There hasn't been any profound change in his standing amongst pundits, etc.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 22:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Blnguyen! Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rahul Dravid]] 

message: I think we need a discussion and consensus on the listing of individual bowlers on articles like Off spin, Leg spin, Left-arm orthodox spin and Fast bowling, etc. This also applies to the mentioning of specific bowlers on articles like Doosra, Googly and Flipper (cricket) as notable exponents of certain deliveries. There are cases where the page says "list of off-spinners" and others like "notable legspinners" or "proficient spinners". I think we need some criteria on notability and skill guidelines for inclusions in this list, or else we need to include any bowler. A lot of the spinners lists contain part-time spinners who are specialist batsmen like Mark Waugh, Yuvraj Singh, Michael Clarke (cricketer), Virender Sehwag, Darren Lehmann; however specialist spinners who are better, but have not been selected to play International cricket yet are not - eg. Dan Cullen (AUS young player of the year , offbreak) and Piyush Chawla (IND,  17 yrs old Uttar Pradesh legspinner who gained headlines by bowling Tendulkar a couple of times at first-class level with a flipper and googly and was one of the big talking points of the recent u-19 world cup).Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't much like any of the lists on those pages, because they tend to expand out of control as everyone adds their favourite players. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  what about having the top ten or so of each type on the page, ranked by either # of test wickets or best average??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't object to something like that, as long as it was objective. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowling Techniques 

message: Hmm. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that's what Sir Geoffrey means by "the corridor of uncertainty". Johnlp 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest a redirect to Beach cricket (well, backyard cricket, but that redirected to beach cricket itfp). The article as it stands is completely unverifiable. Sam Vimes 07:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corridor cricket. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Corridor cricket]]

message: Where's this delightful fellow gone? He has gone cold for three weeks, and hasn't put one of those "I'm on holidays" messages on his page.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:jguk]]

message: List of famous left-handed people#cricket needs to be populated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read somewhere that David Gower, who is on this list, claimed to be right-handed but to find the left-handed batting stance more comfortable and productive, since the left hand/arm produces the power while the right hand/arm provides the more delicate control. Does anyone know if this is correct? There are, of course, also an awful lot of players who batted right-handed and bowled left-handed, and somewhat fewer who batted left-handed but bowled right-handed. Perhaps we should have lists of them too, if only to show that cricket is a far more complex sport than most others and positively inclusive in its multi-dextrousness. ;-) Johnlp 14:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you'll tend to find that it is more likely that cricketers are "X"-handed will bowl with their "X" hand rather than bat "X" handed.. eg. Michael Clarke is a leftie, Ganguly is a rightie and I heard a commentator say Mohammad Yousuf is actually a leftie.  DaGizzaChat © 13:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe Lara's also a rightie who bats as a leftie. Hadlee's another example of a rightie who bowled right-handed and batted left-handed. Then there's the strange case of Alan Border, who batted and bowled left-handed but supposedly writes with his right hand. --Muchness 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left-handers