Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 25

message: I was quite shocked by how out of date this article is. It's also littered with typos. I'm going to get stuck into it and do my best. I welcome any and all assistance. --Dweller 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a bit of a go at this too (can't take much of the credit though!)- please can someone else have a look at the discussion at talk:Brian Lara and see what they think about our suggestions?--Gavinio 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brian Lara]] 

message: Some of you may have noticed already, but I've created a new page, User:CricketBot/stubs. This lists biographies which are stub-length, together with the number of Tests and ODIs the player has played. This should help in identifying players who are a priority for an improved article.
(This replaces the previous page User:CricketBot/substubs).
Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good stuff, Stephen, and something struck me immediately when I started scanning the list.  There seems to be a lot of Kiwis in there.  I'm currently working on the histories of the rest of the world outside England and I've been surprised by the limited amount of material about NZ cricket, which I'm going to try and rectify.  If anyone has anything they can input, please do so when you have time.  Every little bit helps.  --BlackJack | talk page 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had noticed that myself when I was writing the Martin Donnelly (cricketer) page.  I've also noticed though that Zimbabwe, South Africa, Sri Lanka et al. players also have a limited amount of coverage and that some of the Indian cricketers' page, for example, are laughably poorly written.  --Roisterer 00:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:CricketBot/stubs]] 

message: This drivel has appeared in the main cricket category.  It is yet another example of the tedious "corridor cricket" nonsense.  Could someone with admin functions please remove it and do whatever is necessary to prevent repeats.  Thanks.  --BlackJack | talk page 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big turn. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This could probably have been prodded, as I don't think it would have met with any controversy. Ollie 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought about it but decided that the author would probably oppose the prod. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Big turn]] 

message: There is an interesting question by a reader from America at Talk:Underarm_bowling_incident_1981. Tintin (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should really confuse him with this link to a Cricinfo column of today's date jguk 13:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong with .. 

message: Can someone take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Wright&action=history The cricketer article was moved and replaced by one about a company that gets 4 google hits. Unknowingly, I too helped him in cleaning up the page. Tintin (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a speedy deletion candidate to me. I've listed it as such. If and when it gets deleted, the cricketer can move back. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. DaGizza deleted the page and moved the original one back. Tintin (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kevin Wright]] 

message: See discussion at: Minor counties
User:ProveIt has requested that we put the name of this category into context.  --BlackJack | talk page 09:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Counties category up for rename 

message: I've never heard of the marriage controversy mentioned in Tony_Greig#Later_career. Is it well-known in Aus/Eng ? Tintin (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I recall it.  I think Greig was even temporarily suspended over it.  --Roisterer 07:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly well known in Australia. It was big news at the time. And yes, I also recall that Greig was temporarily suspended from the Channel 9 commentary team over it. -dmmaus 05:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tony Greig]] 

message: Should we have a general understanding of some sort, that adding things about which football team or which music some player listens to should be removed from the article? It seems what we are perhaps hesitant to put down a marker about this kind of stuff, but I think we should start enforcing it. I think it is unencyclopedicBlnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be hard to make a general rule as to what's in and what's out, but I too would like to see these things removed when people find them. I think Wikipedia is generally good at removing untrue stuff, but bad at removing true but irrelevant stuff. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult to be hard and fast about this. Favourite musician is quite an important issue for Bob Willis and Graham Cowdrey. --Dweller 10:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material in the Trivia section of the Willis article definitely belongs in the article, but does it need to be in a separate section? JPD (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not fond of Trivia sections in general, and in the case of articles which might one day be FA candidates (Donald Bradman being the obvious one) I think they're a significant barrier to achieving that status. Mostly I feel that if a fact is important enough it should be possible to work it into the main text somewhere, rather than having an ugly and disjointed list. Loganberry (Talk) 14:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Crackdown 

message: Copied from WP:CRIQ : 
:::Hi there, sorry I haven't posted with university taking up most of my time this year, and I apologise that this post is not actually to do with the quiz either. I am in a team called 'Dedication C.C.' and recently a few of the guys created a page here on Wikipedia which was unfortunately dismissed as a few school kids playing a prank, and the administration have subsequentially deleted the page. I can assure you that this wasn't a prank, in fact you can see us in the draw (sorry I don't have any more solid evidence) on http://www.willowfest.com.au/index.htm (Willowfest is an annual cricket carnival played from 27-30 Dec in Mildura, Australia). I'm not sure how much power any of you have, however, I would greatly appreciate your help to try and get our page back online, thanks in advance! Jazzycab 08:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Thanks for clearing that up, thanks for your time. Jazzycab 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dedication CC 

message: I've decided to take the plunge and apply to be an admin:
admin application
My main purpose is to help the development of cricket on the site and as an admin to protect it but in a more general sense I would like to get involved with AfD and CfD.  --BlackJack | talk page 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Best of luck with it. I see the discussion closes on the 25th, so I hope you have a nice present waiting for you come the big day! Andrew nixon 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin application 

message: I've noticed that somebody has added extensive tables of batting averages for Test and ODI players, both retired and active to Batting average. I think this is a  bad move for several reasons:
1. It makes for a page that needs constant updating with new stats.
2. I don't believe Wikipedia should be a repository of constantly updated sports stats anyway. Other sites do it better, and we can easily provide an external link to CricInfo or HowsStat or whatever.
3. Probably most importantly: It makes it look like cricket is starting to monopolise that article at the expense of baseball. I think this is a bad thing, because it presents a bad image of cricket on Wikipedia. (And everyone here should know that we've had and continue to have image problems in the face of people who think cricket is a ridiculous sport.) The article as it was before was primarily an interesting insight into how two different sports arrived at their respective primary batting statistic, illustrating clearly the relationship between them and the important differences in a statistical sense. I believe that many baseball fans who came to the page discovered something of interest about their chosen sport and how its history is related to cricket, that they never would have learnt if there were separate articles on batting average for each sport. I fear that if we start pushing too much cricket stats in to the page we may alienate the baseball people and create a push to separate it into two articles, which would be a tragedy.
Therefore I propose removing most of the batting average tables, restoring it to only the top 10 Test averages, to mirror the baseball stats. -dmmaus 22:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we are to place such detail in there on both sports the article should have a synopsis of both sectons directly after the lead. I don't think the extra stat info is bad per se, but the more casual reader needs to get at the gist of the information for each sport rather more easily. Secondly, is there any reason why cricket is before baseball? Surely a neutral alphbetical listing would be appropriate here? --LiamE 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall from a previous discussion, cricket is first because the concept of "batting average" in baseball came after, and indeed was derived from, the similar concept in cricket. Thus it's justifiable from a historical perspective. Loganberry (Talk) 01:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup just seen that over there. As long as there is reason I'm happy with the ordering. --LiamE 02:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Batting Average article

message: Please may I say that I have moved the Ben Smith article to Ben Smith (cricketer) (due to the high amount of Ben Smith articles on the site). I have also sorted the double re-directs and it took me over an hour! If I have made any mistakes please contact me on my Talk page. Kingjamie 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine. He is only a county cricketer. The others also seem to be on the same level of importance. Tintin (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent work there. I should have done it myself really, given that I wrote most of the material in the article and that I noticed some other Ben Smiths a little while ago, but never got around to it. Thank you! Loganberry (Talk) 16:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Smith 

message: Hi there. I here that your list, List of Test cricketers, is automatically updated. If so, how is this done. We at WP:RU are rather interested in some sort of way at reducing user time in completing List of All Blacks. Please reply either here, my talk page or at talk:WP:RU. Chow.--HamedogTalk|@ 06:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be great if all sports could copy the automatic system used in updating cricketers. I personally don't know how it works. GizzaChat © 08:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy Christmas, everyone. I update that page, but it's just compiled from all the national pages (List of Australian Test cricketers etc.) which are not automatically updated. So it hasn't really solved the problem. (I had an idea once that it should be possible in principle to update all the lists, and all the players' infoboxes for that matter, automatically at the end of every Test, but that's obviously much harder). Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who created all those lists? Sounds like a lot of work. But I guess once your done its just maintaining.--HamedogTalk|@ 22:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Test cricketers]] 

message: The RSC FAQ  classifies fast-medium bowlers as faster than medium-fast bowlers, and medium-slow as faster than slow-medium. This fits with my experience of how commentators generally use the terms; however, an editor is claiming on the fast bowling article that medium-fast is faster than fast-medium, citing Vikram Singh's cricinfo profile as a reference. Does anyone else have input on how these terms are generally used, or a reliable reference for how pace bowlers are generally classified? --Muchness 05:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the discussion is continued at Talk:Fast bowling as it has already started there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fast bowling classification

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I'm not sure if there's already a stylistic standard regarding this, but after browsing a few articles, there doesn't appear to be. What is the consensus on having the asterisk indicating a not out score on a player's highest score, being a link to the aforementioned article or a similar explanation of the concept of not-out? Therefore, if someone not too familiar with the intricacies of cricket scoring were to come across the cryptic asterisk, they'd be linked to a definitive explanation. If so, should this only be done on the player's infobox (i.e., their highest score), throughout the article or only at the first occurrence within an article? I've done this in the infobox at the Makhaya Ntini article on which I'm currently working. Any thoughts? - Cenobite 22:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's an excellent idea. --Dweller 10:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indication of not-out scores