Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 9

message: Should WikiProject Cricket take a stronger approach on improving the standard of cricket computer and internet-based games, such as Cricket 2005, Cricket 2004, Stick Cricket and Cricket Manager? DaGizza 12:13 2 September 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, if F-1 considers games to be near its core topic, I don't see why we should leave it out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
::I created a :Category:Cricket computer games to at least keep them all together. -- Ian ≡ talk 08:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An overview article would be nice; I did think about starting one a few weeks ago, but gave up when I couldn't find a good layout for it. Loganberry (Talk) 12:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cricket Computer Games

message: I've just written this... but am not at all sure about which catgories to use. I've gone for :Category:National cricket teams on the grounds that they appeared in the 1979 ICC Trophy, have often played Scotland and Ireland, and also took part in those matches against England more recently. However, they're not ICC members, even affiliates, since the ECB covers Welsh professional cricket and so aren't a national cricket team at the highest possible level of Welsh cricket. They've also been a first-class team (1923-30) and are also now a minor county. Help! Loganberry (Talk) 11:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm stumped. However, I think national cricket teams is ok for now. Sam Vimes 22:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the fact that a Northern Ireland team participated in the 1998 Commonwealth Games! However, as far as I can see that was just the regular Irish side under a flag of convenience, so I've simply stuck a section into the Irish cricket team article. Commonwealth Games cricket does cause some complication, though, since the various Caribbean islands competed separately, meaning that for that tournament at least, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, and Jamaica were national cricket teams in the full sense. Loganberry (Talk) 15:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Welsh cricket team]] 

message: McGrath's back and I'm feeling good! 
Betting odds FYI:
*Centrebet (AUS) 
**Eng 4.20
**Draw 2.35
**Aust 2.40
*Ladbrokes (UK)
**Eng 3.40
**Draw 2.37
**Aust 2.50
-- Ian ≡ talk 03:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  5th Test 

message: I have created Template:West Indian batsmen with a test batting average over 50 as a template, I don't know if I've put a link to the template on every page.  Please check--Knucmo2 22:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template creation

message: Should this have its own article?  There's a lot of science emerging about it now.
By the way, only just discovered this Project........ NICE work! --PopUpPirate 23:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Pirate, nearest we've got is Swing_bowling#Reverse_swing.  I sort of think that unless someone had a lot more to add, it would be better to keep it in the one article. BTW, why not join up and grab cap# 36! -- Ian ≡ talk 04:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse Swing 

message: I was trying to find something on this, since it's affected quite a few bowlers recently, and also as I understand there's been a couple of rule changes as well. I'm a bit lost with this whole controversy. If someone were to put up a short article on what Chucking exactly is (with the whole elbow-straightening thing explained and the 10 degrees/15 degrees thingy), that would be a big help! A couple of explanatory diagrams wouldn't go amiss either.
On the topic of diagrams, I believe that they would be particularly helpful on the bowling pages, especially the pages that explain each type of delivery. --Peripatetic 17:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was something on this stuff on the Talk:Cricket page archives. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chucking/Throwing controversy

message: Image wrongly named - ignore me on that one!  Anyway, something I've been toying with today, would be nice to have a demonstration of the different types of balls such as offspin, outswinger etc, shown on each article.  And maybe a demonstration for strokes too.
Good idea or not?  Can anyone do a better job than me? (probably!) --PopUpPirate 22:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: excellent idea.. that's just the kind of thing I was writing abt.. the diagram could probably have a "neater" appearance, but yeah the idea is spot-on. -- Peripatetic 23:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta for comments - I agree the image could be of a better quality, perhaps something simpler would be better, unless we have any resident photoshop whizzes?  --PopUpPirate 23:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/~ngb/random/legspin.png ? --Ngb ?!? 06:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/~ngb/random/legbreak.png vs http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/~ngb/random/offbreak.png -- better? I'm using Xara X to make them, which sadly doesn't have SVG export. --Ngb ?!? 11:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great stuff - I'd ditch the bowler for sake of image quality but the path the ball takes is superb.  To show swing on a ball, it may be necessary to have a shadow line?  --PopUpPirate 22:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template images 

message: Do we have any "official" WikiProject standards on this? I don't think we can manage to have all articles using exactly the same terminology since usage differs across the world - eg extras in Britain but sundries in Australia; a score of 200 for 5 in England but 5 for 200 in Australia. What follows is what I now do; comments are more than welcome.
Dates: linked normally for calendar years - 2004 - but linked to the appropriate season for, er, seasons - 2003. This leads to a lot of redlinks, but with any luck those articles will be written in time now that we're getting more and more members.
Overseas seasons: 2002-03 Australian cricket season, to appear in articles as 2002-03. Using a hyphen rather than a slash eliminates any possible subpage-related problems, and is also in line with Wisden style. It does mean a bit more care is needed in some cases: for example, Flintoff this winter will (one hopes!) take part in both 2005-06 (Australian season - the Super Series) and 2005-06 (Pakistan - the normal Tests and ODIs).
Statistics: Slashes for scores (200/5 or 5/200, depending on country) and hyphens for bowling figures (4-51). Doing this also helps with Australian articles where "5 for 78" might be either a poor team score or a good bowling performance. I have occasionally seen "78 for 5" used by Australians to mean a bowler taking five wickets for 78 runs, but only very rarely so I assume it's not at all common.
These are just examples of how I write things at the moment; if there's a consensus for changing to a specific standard different from the above then I'll go along with it, though I think in most cases the best solution would be to set up redirects so that, for example, all the common permutations of a date (eg 2002-2003, 2002-03, 2002-3, 2002/2003, 2002/03 and 2002/3, all plus "Australian cricket season") end up at the same article anyway. Loganberry (Talk) 23:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with that, and if I write bios of Australian players then I'll try to remember to use Australian terminology; that fits in well with the Wikipedia standard of writing US-related articles in US English etc. I'll probably make mistakes - I keep forgetting that Australia treats teams as singular ("England has won the Ashes") - but I'm sure Aussie editors will be able to correct any of those errors I make. Though I must admit that if England make a score like that on the first morning in 15 months' time, I shan't be worrying too much about which way around the scorecard goes! Loganberry (Talk) 10:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep forgetting that Australia treats teams as singular ("England has won the Ashes") -- That's news to me! This Aussie would always say "England have won the Ashes". (Well, hopefully not for another 18 years...) -dmmaus 10:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's newspaper-speak, because I see it a lot there. For example, from The Age: Australia has held onto its world No.1 ICC Test ranking...; from the Melbourne Herald Sun: Australia has been world-beaters for so long...; and from the Brisbane Courier-Mail: Australia has won about 30 more Tests than England. (That was me. Loganberry (Talk) 21:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology again 

message: I've started adding dates to the Recently Updated Articles on WikiProject Cricket so we know when to remove old ones. I suggest after a month, until such time as articles are created with such rapidity that the list grows too long and we need to shorten it. -dmmaus 03:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently updated articles cycling

message: There have been quite a few thoughts that the format "[Team A] in [Country B] in [Season]" is a bit ambiguous, the argument being that "there's gonna be a lot of Australians in England in 2005" (for example). Anyone have big objections if I started moving them to the slightly less objectionable "[Team A] cricket team in [Country B] in [Season]"? Yes, I know cricinfo and cricketarchive and Wisden use the first format, but they're specialised cricket pages, while we're a general interest encyclopedia.
While we're at it - :Category:International cricket competitions could very well explode this year (if I continue to write articles at the rate I have been doing so far, anyway). Maybe it would be a good idea to create subcategories by international season, or alternatively by decade? Sam Vimes 06:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so people can see the background, there is some discussion in The 2005 Ashes (stimulated by discussion of whether The 2005 Ashes is in the right place).  There is also the issue of wonen's teams, which seem sadly neglected... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Series nomenclature and categorisation

message: Is it just me or has wikipedia been getting slower and slower over the last month or so? -- Ian ≡ talk 14:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, painfully so sometimes: I find it is much faster logged out, but it is a pain to have to wait to to log back in to get my edits attributed properly.  I like to open lots of pages at once and flick between then (from my watchlist, I open the history for a dozen or more interesting edits and then do diffs back to something relevant, like my last edit) for the past few weeks my connection has been timing out!  This is real pain where an edit times out, since often the text from the edit is lost.  I have taken to editing in an external editors and cutting and pasting the final version so I have a backup if the connection falls over. There has been comment in at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Extreme server slowness - general server load, to be fixed by new servers; crash of one of the main database servers on 11 September (9/11...) (I have been having problems further back than this though).  The new Korean servers may help... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic 

message: What is/was the status of East and Central Africa? Cricket Archive indicates (, ) that East Africa was an Associate Member of the ICC from 1966 until 1989, at which point it was replaced by East and Central Africa. The latter played in the ICC Trophy for some time, but do not appear on the ICC's official list now  so presumably the team no longer exists. Uganda, for example, became an Associate Member in 1998, but since E&CA played in the 2001 ICC Trophy it cannot have been a straight replacement. It all sounds pretty convoluted; has anyone got information on what actually happened? Loganberry (Talk) 23:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  East and Central Africa 

message: I need the dimensions of the following for an average cricket ground: (yards OR metres will do)
*Vertical diameter =
*horizontal diameter = 
*Width of central rectangular strip
*Length of strip.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I wish I could find a horiz diameter. I guess a ratio of 200:150 (dia) should be satisfactory? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Field dimensions 

message: While browsing the Australia talk page, I came across this tag for old Australian pictures:
The words 'Copyright has also expired on photographs taken prior to January 1, 1955' sound promising to me. Does that mean that we would be able to take any photo of say Bill O'Reilly (provided it was taken in Australia) and put it up on the article under this tag, or are there any other copyright issues?
:Yes, you are correct, it is in Public domain. But cite the year and source when uploading. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that most of the photos I can find are off cricinfo, and they don't give an exact year or much other information usually. Of course it's safe to assume a photo of Victor Trumper was taken before 1955, but the only source info for most of the ones I've looked at is "Reproduced with permission from The Cricketer International". Would this affect the copyright in any way? Raven4x4x 10:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they can't claim the image to be copyrighted if it was published before 1955 as per Aus copyright law. There's a Aus govt. pdf file linked in the above template. If you do come across a photo that was taken before 1955, upload the image to commons: instead of here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I'll get on to that when I have the chance. One final question, why must I upload them to commons rather than here? It's no problem, I'm just curious to know.  Raven4x4x 00:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Images in commons can be shared across all wikis. en, de, fr wikiquote etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Australian Pictures 

message: Yet again someone is out to delete the work of the project...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glamorgan v Northamptonshire 4 September 2005. And only a week before the season ends, too. Sam Vimes 07:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is rapidly becoming seriously frustrating.  Sam Korn 22:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating the centralized discussion was a good idea, so we can get some sort of final consensus. I've placed my opinion on the discussion page, so I won't repeat it here. Raven4x4x 08:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Although voting on the AfD pages too is probably still a good idea. Stephen Turner 10:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A shame about the wording "non-championship sporting event results" though - by this definition, the [County] Championship is not a championship! =;) Loganberry (Talk) 13:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD