Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 6

message: I was going to put this on jguk's Talk page, but I think he deserves wider recognition so I'm putting it here: List of English Test cricketers is building into a tremendously useful page, especially for those of us who do a lot of biographical articles! So thank you very much - this is going to save me a lot of time and effort, and (even in its current incomplete state) deserves to be widely known about. Loganberry (Talk) 22:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So good, you had to mention it twice at some point. ;) Have to agree, though, splendid work jguk! Sam Vimes 23:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And thank you to you as well for expanding it so much of late! Loganberry (Talk) 15:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! :) I've got a spreadsheet for doing it, though, so it hardly counts. ;) On this, though, Ian has done some splendid work on List of Australian Test cricketers, but unfortunately there's some inconsistent formatting. While I agree that including catches and stumpings are useful, the measure of an over has changed so much over time that using it will automatically result in problems. Someone who bowled 677 overs in the 1920s, for example, bowled more balls than someone bowling 800 overs in the 1990s. So I think we should have some kind of consistent formatting for these pages - which needn't be the option used on either page, but some kind of compromise. It needs to be done quickly, though, before we continue to add things Sam Vimes 20:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Must admit I rather prefer the Australian list's formatting on the whole, though it would be a shame to lose precise first and last Test dates. But I agree with you that it would be much better to use balls rather than overs throughout, especially since the Aussies had eight-ball overs until comparatively recently. Loganberry (Talk) 20:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the Aussie one half done in excel format from a project I was working on from some time ago.  From memory the data came mostly from here and here.  I agree that balls would be preferable to overs (howstat reports overs), but I can't for the life of me find a table with that data.  You'd have to go to Crincinfo for each individual I suppose.  Unless someone can point to something specific, can we agree that we'll change the Aussie table to balls at some later time.  I had a go at including a few other columns like 50's and 100's for batsmen, and 5wkInns and 10wkmatches for bowlers but there was just not room as it started to get very cluttered.  As per formatting differences (career start/end dates, catches/stumpings, headings) it's a matter of opinion of course, but I think I prefer the Aussie table. - Ian ≡ talk 23:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well - I think I've figured out a way of including the dates - take a look at User:Sam Vimes/Sandbox. That unfortunately removed maidens and runs conceded, but I don't think they're vital statistics. Point is that I'd like to get a format hammered out before we start on the other eight lists Sam Vimes 08:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Had a look at your Sandbox table, and I think it's very nice. As for balls bowled, I suspect that in the end those doing the tables will indeed have to go to Cricinfo for every single cricketer, which is going to be boring and tedious but I can't see any other way to do it. I'm happy to agree to make "balls" the aim but leave it in the Aussies' case until there's time to edit it. Loganberry (Talk) 15:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the way I did it for the English - my spreadsheet means that it in fact it's rather quick to do, I can manage 40 in 15 minutes if I concentrate. Tedious, yes, but most tasks are in the end :) Sam Vimes 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I think that the dates look awful!  I can see why you've done it that way but I feel that a year would be adequate if they're going to have to look like 1877-03-15.  If someone wants more detail they can always click on the player name link.  I agree everything else though. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of English Test cricketers 

message: I have an idea. I'm not sure if it can be a success but here goes. Since free images of cricketers are rare, I thought that those of us with digicams can click a snapshot (w/o flash) of a particular cricketer on TV. Poor quality yes, but at least we'll have an image.  =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
: That is an interesting idea. On the same lines, there a lot of video clips of cricket matches floating around in the net. Even stills from them can be used. Tintin 17:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wary of that, since I understand that under US law (which after all is what we're going by on Wikipedia) the "fair use" exemption is actually considerably narrower than most people think. I Am Not A Lawyer and all that, but as jguk mentions below, TV images are copyright the station. On a technical point, if anyone had a TV card on their computer, that would produce better pictures than a photo... though going back to the copyright point, I believe that in some cases at least, the higher the resolution of an image the less likely it is to be acceptable as "fair use". On top of all that, I wonder whether Wikipedia may at some point cry "enough" and insist that all images used are explicitly under a proper free licence, and say "no more fair use pictures". Loganberry (Talk) 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   came out pretty well. Too bad it cannot be used. Tintin 03:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC they already have tried to stomp down on it - there was a bit of a fuss about a month ago - but I can't remember where it was. Sam Vimes 22:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but see the quote from Jimbo Wales I've mentioned in reply to jguk below; JW goes on to say, "As of today [19 May 2005], all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight." Loganberry (Talk) 22:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd probably be the one I thought of, yes Sam Vimes 22:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The main problem I can see with that is that very few organisations are likely to permit free commercial use of their pictures - and non-commercial-only pictures are not made welcome on Wikipedia. To quote Jimbo Wales himself: "All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be  deleted_."  Loganberry (Talk) 22:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... I don't know, to be honest. The fair use article has a lot of information, but it seems clear that much of what is generally assumed is not written down and has not been tested in the courts. Personally I don't intend to upload any pictures not under a clearly defined free-use licence, and I'd prefer it if we didn't use them, but if I'm in a minority there then I'm not going to go around deleting any that others put up unless there's a good reason to do so. Loganberry (Talk) 22:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It's believed, AIUI, that a shot of a copyrighted TV program is only fair use to illustrate an article about that program -- so :Image:Wcta-prematch.jpg would only be fair use if it was used in an article about the Nine Network's cricket coverage. Fair use is inherently dodgy as it's so ill-defined, so I now try to avoid uploading fair use stuff unless there is a cast-iron case as laid out at Wikipedia:Fair_use. --Ngb 08:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of cricketers 

message: At 91 Tests, is Evans the most-capped player not to have a Wikipedia article? We should be ashamed of ourselves! One of the greatest wicket-keeper batsmen ever (along with Engineer and Gilchrist) - surely it's time we rectified this.
The lists of Test cricketers will probably throw up more anomalies like this. In the medium term, I think we should aim to have articles on all cricketers who have played at least one international match - but in the short-term, those who've played 10 or more Tests, say, should get articles, jguk 20:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Syed Kirmani is another (with 88) - clearly there's an anti-wickie systemic bias on the project. And yes, Evans is the most capped player without an article (though Desmond Haynes barely counts...he played 116 Tests, and all we care is four lines!) Sam Vimes 21:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I've made a stub for Evans. Could do with expansion. --Ngb 22:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: A nice landmark! Looking at the list, though, I notice that the two articles at Jack Hearne (John William Hearne) and J. W. Hearne are about the same player. A merge would seem in order, but which article should be kept? Loganberry (Talk) 14:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Godfrey Evans]] 

message: A small problem is approaching with regard to John Stephenson... or rather, Stephensons. As things stand, the page is occupied by an American voice actor, but I think that since we have a John Stephenson (JP) who played Test cricket, "our" man is notable enough to get equal billing, so I've asked if anyone would object to having John Stephenson (voice actor) (currently a redirect page to John Stephenson) and John Stephenson (cricketer). However, there are three other John Stephensons who have played first-class cricket. Two didn't do very much so can safely be ignored, but the other (JWA) is more notable, since he captained Essex, for three games at the end of 1939. He also took 9-46 for the Gentlemen against the Players at Lord's in 1936, which I think is the best innings return by one of the Gents in this fixture. Some guidance on where he might be placed would be useful. Addition: apparently John Stephenson (actor) is preferred for the "other" JS, as he wasn't only a voice actor. Loganberry (Talk) 01:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: John Stephenson (actor), John Stephenson (Essex and England cricketer) for JP, John Stephenson (Essex cricketer) for JWA? John Stephenson (cricketer) could disambig between the two or simply redirect to JP. --Ngb 08:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there are a few of those. From the list of England Test cricketers I can remember two David Smiths and two Jack Russells, too... Sam Vimes 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And there are four international Mike Smiths: for England there are MJK of course, one-Test wonder AM Smith and ODI-only MJ, and there's also an MJ who's played ODIs for Scotland. Loganberry (Talk) 12:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And there were there were 3 Edward A'Beckett's that played first-class cricket in Australia.  Only 1 played in Tests. -- Ian ≡ talk 07:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Stephenson(s)! 

message: I notice that several sports have a specific stub for biographical articles, for example  for baseball and  for football (soccer). What about having a  for cricket? Looking at the guidelines about new stub categories, it would seem to fit all the criteria mentioned there:
*1. Is there a stub for this topic already? - no; we only have the base .
*2. Will the new category be well-defined enough to help editors identify articles that they have the expertise to expand? - yes; "biographical cricket article" seems pretty well defined to me.
*3. Does the new category cover ground not covered by other categories, or create a well-defined subcategory that does? - yes; it's a well-defined subcategory as mentioned in point 2 above.
*4. Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type? - undoubtedly. There are several hundred cricket bio articles in existence already, and the number is certain to grow further.
*5. Would your new category overlap with other categories? - not as far as I can see, since there's currently only one type of cricket stub; for example, cricket-stubs are not sorted by country in the way geo-stubs are.
*6. If you are breaking a subcategory out of a pre-existing category, will the new stub reduce the size of the parent category by a significant amount? - yes, for the reasons mentioned in point 4 above.
Given the above, and the aforementioned fact that a number of sports have already created a subcategory for biographical articles, I would think that  ought to have a fairly easy ride in Stub proposals, but I'll hold back for now in case others feel this would be a bad idea. Thoughts welcome! Loganberry (Talk) 02:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is a need for a separate bio stub, but maybe we should go a step further and have , ,  etc etc. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not particularly keen on that idea, for several reasons. Firstly, it's "jumping a subcat" - maybe we could do it if  itself got unmanageably large, but not yet - I can't see there being the support for, say,  given the small number of Zimbabwean cricketers written up so far, and subcats are only supposed to be created in response to existing, not potential, need. (Having special subcats for some countries and not others might also be rejected as unnecessarily confusing.) Secondly, other sports don't do it (even those like football with large numbers of bios), so we'd be going against convention. Thirdly, there seems to be a slight bias in the Stub proposals arena against long stub names ( has run into a little trouble for just that reason). And fourthly, it would mean having to have two stubs for people like Kepler Wessels. Loganberry (Talk) 02:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've just proposed cricketbio-stub, since even if we do end up with the country-specific stubs further down the track, we're going to need this one anyway. Apparently there's now a week's wait while the folks there decide whether or not to tear the idea to pieces... Loganberry (Talk) 19:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we propose "Cricketbio-stub"? 

message: Apropos of nothing, I have been nominated for adminship and would appreciate the support of you guys. :) Thanks! --Ngb 07:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally irrelevant