Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 28

message: From Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Articles, which shows just how big the cricket project really is:
As at           	Articles	Categories	Templates
13 February 2007	8720    	1164      	38
5 January 2007  	6944    	521       	19
2 December 2006 	6511    	n/a       	n/a
—Moondyne 08:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How did the cats and articles spike so much? Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the cats aren't tagged automatically .  Every now and again someone needs to ask Ingrid to get WatchlistBot to do that. —Moondyne 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some project statistics

message: Please could a WikiProject member review the project rating of West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 on its talk page. It's currently "B class" and "Mid Importance". Thanks --Dweller 10:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it passes FAC, it would be FA class which would supersede the B class. I would stick by the mid importance rating. As a series without a major cricketing upheaval, (a la Bodyline) it wouldn't be rated as Top. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is the option of High in between Mid and Top. Like so many articles, it seems to me to be clearly neither Top nor Low, but it's hard to decide whether Mid or High is more appropriate. Perhaps it should stay as Mid, since if it was High then a very large number of other articles on Test series would logically have to be High as well. JH (talk page) 10:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mid. It's only one Test series. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings 

message: I've changed the South African cricket team (infobox and one reference in article) and Australian cricket team (infobox only) articles to reflect the change in positions in the rankings. Dunno if there are any other articles that need to be changed Nil Einne 06:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not for Australian cricket :) GizzaChat © 07:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for its good for cricket in general, and for australia to some extent, at least now they have a challenge. It was getting boring with their domination.--Thugchildz
I agree. Their complacency after the decimation of England in the Ashes proved their dominance, so it's good to see them getting smashed a bit. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 10:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa overtake Australia in ODI 

message: Hey, just wanted to say that me and Dweller are doing our level best to get Colly up to FA in next-to-no-time.  It relies on all of us to achieve this.  It's already undergone a peer review and has matured significantly in the international section of his bio.  It really needs some help in the domestic part of his career.  Any takers?  I'd like to think that with 80+ correctly footnoted citations, this article could become the template for future good cricket biographies so please, help where you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs) 
:Oh yeah, good point, I should have signed that!  The Rambling Man 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collingwood FA drive 

message: I understand that, now that he has left us, BlackJack is doing some work on his own website. Does anyone know where I might find it? I would be really interested to see what his work looks like when it is done his way, free of Wikipedian restrictions. Robertson-Glasgow 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BlackJack's website 

message: I plan to put up the bot template to allow for automated archivals (old comments that have no response for a week) by Werdnabot. Does anyone have any issues with this? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Activated it! =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Werdnabot 

message: Okay, this may sound like a broken record, but I'm now pushing Gilly as a potential FA in accordance with the current drive to push articles hard before the World Cup.  I've tagged all the non-referenced claims with  so, if you're interested, let's get going and make this article work for GA/FA.  The Rambling Man 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List it on PR, I'll review there. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll do some work on it before putting it up for Peer review.  There are some obvious problems with the article which don't need to be pointed out to me at the moment...!  The Rambling Man 15:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adam Gilchrist]] FA drive 

message: There's an RM discussion posted at Talk:Cricket_%28disambiguation%29#Requested_move to move the bad page to cricket.  I dropped a note saying that the RM notice should also be at cricket, but I thought I'd mention it here in the meantime.  Guettarda 18:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RM]] [[Cricket (disambiguation)]] -> [[Cricket]] 

message: I think this is the closest of the biographies. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List it on PR, I'll comment there. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, still have to pad out another year, but since there is already a big mood for FAs, I have added Wikipedia:Peer review/Irfan Pathan/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Dinesh Karthik/archive1 which are already GAs, but have no photos. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harbhajan Singh]] FA Drive 

message: I have just stumbled upon this article, and it is just list after list after list. I have very little knowledge of the Kiwi's, and nothing before around the '99 WC, so anyone who could add some prose would be hugely appreciated. Cheers, к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 18:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[New Zealand cricket team]] 

message: I just had to undelete this (one of User:BlackJack's stubby tour articles, which was speedily deleted for having no content).  I took the opportunity to expand it too.
If anyone has the time, it would be helpful to add a brief summary of the ODIs and Tests on other tours - shorter than this! - before others are speedily deleted (they can always be undeleted, of course). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fan though I am of Jack's huge contribution, the stubs are in these instances not much better than starting from scratch, since they prescribe headings that we wouldn't necessarily follow and cite uniform references that I, for one, don't have access to. So if they get deleted, so be it. I had a go a while back at West Indian cricket team in England in 1973 and will do more: can I suggest 1966 might be a priority for the West Indian tours of England since there are parallels with the tour of 1988 whose article will hopefully be very prominent soon (and it's nice to have all the cross-refs in FAs up to a reasonable standard). Johnlp 18:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - I think they are not so devoid of content as to require deletion, but they could easily be made better.  I have had a stab at West Indian cricket team in England in 1984, but both need more colour and context. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[West Indian cricket team in England in 1980]]

message: The peer review is now open, so please, everyone feel free to have a look at where the article is right now and make suggestions, find sources for the citations with reference and improve the flow of the article.  Thanks, in advance.  The Rambling Man 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Adam Gilchrist]]

message: An editor has changed "Right-handed batsman" to "Right hand bat" in the Infobox in the Graeme Hick article, and I can't find a consensus as to what we should use. I've been using the former style in the articles I've written, but if this is out of step with consensus then I'll change. Loganberry (Talk) 02:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CI uses "bat" and CA uses "batsman". I wonder whether CI does this to avoid being called sexist. (CA uses "batsman" for everyone). On a related issue, what should we use to describe a woman-cricketer - batsman, batswoman or batsperson ? My personal preference is "batsman" but as has happened before, some people may not like it. (What do you call a tail-ender who is sent in early ?  Nightwatchwoman ?!) Tintin (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure I've heard on a few occasions women commentators say that batsman is what should be used as they find batswoman or batsperson to be unweildy. I couldn't point you towards a definitive reference though. A search on dictionary.com reveals that batswoman and batsperson do not seem to be in any English language dictionary, and more than one has a gender-neutral definition for batsman. As for the Right-handed batsman/Right hand bat, the former is best for me. After all Graeme Hick can certainly not be described as a bat! Andrew nixon 08:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure I've heard female players say that they use "batsman" too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's only a matter of time before a term like "batter" becomes widespread.  --BlackJack | talk page 21:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't bet on it. I remember a couple of years ago someone writing a very angry letter to Wisden Cricket Monthly when they referred to someone as a batter. According to him batter should be used only when talking about baseball, never when talking about cricket. Andrew nixon 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: the terms should stay the same. it should be a style rule that the terms should stay the same and be consistent. if you look at the icc headline today it says Rebecca Rolls becomes 12th batsman to complete 2,000 ODI runs. It doesn't say batswomen or bat/bats etc and in cricinfo it says player of the match not - women of the match or man of the match. So it should be a rule to not change the terms and be consistent through out- for mens' and womens'.--Thugchildz 04:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have been better if you started a new section and linked it to the archive rather than pulling it out. GizzaChat © 04:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style question 

message: Is this necessary? It's just the elite list. I imagine it could be deleted and a comment made on the main article saying "matches were refereed by the elite umpires/referees" etc. (better worded, obviously). HornetMike 15:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it isn't neccessary. The names of all umpires used will doubtless appear in the CWC article. And Darrell Hair is incredibly unlikely to umpire in the tournament, contrary to the article. AMBerry 18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then nominate it for deletion - it's a non-article.  The Rambling Man 18:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've taken a copy of the Elite referee table and created ICC Elite referee panel, it stands as a stub for now before I get the chance to expand upon it. AMBerry 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[2007 Cricket World Cup Umpires]]

message: Hi. Just to say I have noticed that the Football wikiproject and the Rugby Union project both run quite succesful versions of WP:AID (see WP:FAID and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Collaboration of the fortnight) for their relevant sporting articles. With so many cricket articles that could be massively improved, and the World Cup FA appeal only being temporary, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to set up a permanent cricket AID following the world cup drive? Then, everything non-international and anything not done during the current drive could be finished off whenever. If anyone has any thoughts to this idea, and would like to rate or slate it, please say so here. Cheers! к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'll buy into that.  It's already underway in this current pre-WC drive as you say, but it would be a shame not to keep that enthusiasm going...! The Rambling Man 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We used to have one — Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Collaboration of the fortnight — but it very quickly died owing to lack of interest. That's not to say it couldn't be started up again, of course; it would be great to do so if the enthusiasm is there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps fortnightly is optimistic?  Cricket article drive of the month?  The Rambling Man 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this is a good idea. Regarding keeping people interested - it would probably be best to do lots of current players in the collaboration. Then editors know the subject, know where to get information etc. HornetMike 18:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's kick it off then, start sign-ups today!  The Rambling Man 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea - I was thinking of proposing it myself! I've created WP:CCOTM, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket Collaboration of the Month to give it it's full name. Hope I'm not jumping the gun too much! Anyway, I've just stuck the World Cup banner there for now, but interested parties may as well start work on the page. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was talking about in above(Wikipedia:Featured articles section). We have to try and keep the drive going even after the world cup and try to get cricket articles on the main page at least once a month. Anyways we should start with the base article(cricket). It needs to go under some renovation to meet current FA standards or it will lose FA!--Thugchildz 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can nominate it for the collaboration on the new page, WP:CCOTM. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It does seem that User:Thugchildz is the only editor really gunning for doing cricket next, which doesn't make it much of a collaboration! Personally, I'm ambivalent, but I was aware that Singh was 'next in line', so to speak. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is harbhajan since he was next in line, but can we get started on it then?--Thugchildz 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I've added my vote for cricket. --Dweller 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Collabaration Proposition

message: There we are. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Harbhajan Singh/archive1]] 

message: Per the to-do page: 
*In the early days of WP:CRIC a large number of "list" articles were created with the intention of capturing all articles covering a particular topic.  Since the introduction of categories and with the increasing number of articles, these lists have tended to lose their original purpose and have become more difficult to maintain.  It has been suggested that some of these lists should become sub-pages of the project and others should be deleted altogether.  See :Category:Cricket lists for such lists.
IMO, this has been dealt with and the remaining lists are legitimate articles.  Does anyone see any lists still there which are superfluous? —Moondyne 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the remaining lists are all acceptable. GizzaChat © 08:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: Yuvraj Singh, Harbhajan Singh,.......... 
The latest target on Gene Nygaard's ideological indexing battle. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Maninder Singh]] indexing again