Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 40

message: Shouldn't this have a field for the names of a ground's ends? That seems likely to be of more general interest than the (extant) field for stand names. Loganberry (Talk) 00:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this should be included as I for one often wonder of the name for ground ends. I see that it has even been attempted to be added on pages such as County Ground, Derby, unsuccessfully of course! Schumi555 09:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Cricket Ground 

message: There are currently quite a few different types of cricket series templates that are in use around Wikipedia. For instance see:
# Cricket World Cup
# 2007 Cricket World Cup
# 2005 Ashes series
# Sri Lankan cricket team in Bangladesh in 2005-06
Although the need to rationalise the template styles in not urgent, it is surely something that should be done in the future to make pages more appealing and for consistency sake, both of which I find rather important. In this regard I propose the following two templates to start off. They are heavily based on a former version of mine of the current two templates used on the first two pages listed above:
# User:Mdmanser/Sandbox3
# User:Mdmanser/Sandbox4
It could even be suggested that these two templates could be merged but perhaps to make things easier with the subtle field variable differences they should be left apart. I suggest that the top bars are colour coded according to whether the Wikipedia page is describing a tournment in general or a specific tournament. Perhaps a similar-styled template could be designed to be used for pages similar to the bottom two pages I listed, although we may choose to leave things as they are now. What are everyone's thoughts on the proposal? mdmanser 12:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tournament, Tournament Series and General Series Infoboxes 

message: Just to let everyone know that he made his county debut today, so I've celebrated by creating an article. No, not that Robbie Williams! this one.
I can imagine the headlines success and failure may bring him... "SWING GETS MIDDLESEX WINNING" "LET ME ENTERTAIN YOU!" / "TAKE THAT!" "MIDDLESEX NEED INTENSIVE CARE" or even some compilations, "WILLIAMS ESCAPOLOGY AFTER MIDDX DO SOMETHIN STUPID" --Dweller 10:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So thats William Shakespeare, Julius Ceasar, Mohammed Ali and now Robbie Williams who have all had namesakes play county cricket. That's going to make a good trivia question some day. Andrew nixon 12:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget Yasir Arafat, who's currently part of the Pakistan national team. GizzaDiscuss © 12:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robbie Williams 

message: Blackjack's actions at Citizendium remind me that eventually, probably soon, someone will bring Cricket to FAR and it will fail. The article is beautiful, pretty accurate, well-written... and largely unsourced. If ever there were a project we should work on collaboratively, it's making this article worthy of its Featured star.
I propose - we leave all images, structure and insignificant copy issues and concentrate on adding cn tags where cites are needed and then replace them with references, or delete the unreferencable material.
Who's willing to help? --Dweller 10:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wondering ... would it be better to make a copy of the page and do it quietly rather than add a lot of tags in a hig profile page ? Tintin 10:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea. If others wish to cooperate, we'll work on it in user space and move it across when done. --Dweller 11:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance, 36 citations didn't seem too bad but then I realised 30 or so of them were in one paragraph. GizzaDiscuss © 12:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm up for it. mdmanser 13:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sadly, Tintin's clever idea cannot currently be done (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Copying_an_article.2C_including_its_history.2C_into_userspace). So I'm kicking off now at the article. Cheers. --Dweller 10:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cricket]] 

message: Thanks guys. I now need to look into how to copy the content and history to my userspace. Watch *this* space. --Dweller 10:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, Tintin's clever idea cannot currently be done (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Copying_an_article.2C_including_its_history.2C_into_userspace). So I'm kicking off now at the article. Cheers. --Dweller 10:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kicking it off

message: Is this notable? Probably best merged into Professional Cricketers' Association.  Advice please. —Moondyne 04:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've seen the magazine on newstands in Australia and once had a few pleasant beers with a member of its editorial staff (IIRC we talked about Monty Panesar). It's probably far more noteworthy than many other wikipedia articles but as that is not a valid reason for keeping an article I will bow to what others think.  --Roisterer 05:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say yes, it is notable in and of itself. I've seen All Out Cricket on the shelves of WH Smith, which is the largest chain of High Street newsagents in the UK. If they stock it, I think that's good enough. Actually, now I come to think about it I feel that we probably should have had an article on it some time ago, and that it should be expanded rather than merged. Loganberry (Talk) 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll leave it for now.  It does need expansion, specifically some secondary sources and a statement clarifying why it is notable.   Currently it reads like one many run of the mill magazines available on newstands. —Moondyne 03:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might remark, only slightly mischievously, here that there are not "many" cricket magazines available on the British High Street! There's the Wisden Cricketer of course, All Out Cricket, and one other if you're lucky. You're quite right about sources, of course: otherwise it's going to get challenged on the "does not assert notablity" clause, and fail, which it doesn't deserve to. Loganberry (Talk) 14:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By many, I wasn't referring specifically to cricket related magazines. —Moondyne 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[All Out Cricket]] 

message: ...but a small milestone has been reached. Every one of the 107 Worcestershire players who made their first-class debuts for the county before the First World War now has some sort of article. Of course I didn't write all of them, and a number will need improvement and/or tidying up in the "next round" of editing, but it's quite nice to have got this far. Lots more work yet to be done, of course! Loganberry (Talk) 11:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Of course I didn't write all of them"... No, but you did write an awful lot of them. So congratulations to you. Johnlp 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! The 1920s and 1950s will occupy a lot of time from now on, I think. Loganberry (Talk) 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'm a Worcestershire fan, for my sins. The one-day game has been a bright spot in an otherwise awful season, and though I confess that I would have liked Lancashire to win the CC this year, frankly beating Worcs in a four-day game was never going to be the hardest job in the world! Thank you for the compliment, too; I'd love us one day to have something on every first-class cricketer, but as those run well into five figures I doubt we ever will. Loganberry (Talk) 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Flanders and Swann|Society frowns on blowing one's own trumpet...]] 

message: How common is this abbreviation? It's the equivalent of One Day Internationals being refered to as ODI's so with the categories should we change "Category:English Twenty20 International cricketers" to "Category:English T20I cricketers"? Crickettragic 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twenty20 Internationals > T20I 

message: As the name of the section implies, the T20 page has a list of every international. It also has a sentence, "The next scheduled match is..." which currently says the Ind vs Pak final. The section is bound to expand and I don't see an equivalent on the One-day cricket and Test cricket pages obviously. I therefore suggest that it should go to another page or be deleted altogether. What are other people's thoughts on this? GizzaDiscuss © 11:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be deleted, not copied into another article. It will soon get out of hand. I'm pretty sure we once had the equivalent article for Test matches and deleted it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Stephen here. I would prefer deleting them altogether. Such a list only has value at the beginning when not many games have been played. Speaking of which, that was a great game I just saw. So relieved that the Aussies haven't grabbed hold of the newest trophy. It is my beloved India :-) GizzaDiscuss © 15:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Twenty20#List_of_Men.27s_Twenty20_International_games]] 

message: Gul sent one down to Dhoni in the Twenty20 final today. Is it just my imagination, or are beamers becoming more common in international cricket than they used to be? And if so, is it possible to find a source to quote in the (currently entirely unsourced) Beamer (cricket) article about it? Loganberry (Talk) 22:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beamers 

message: Is anyone else getting "HTTP 500 Internal Server Error" when they attempt to access their Watchlist? I'm feeling rather bereft not being able to access mine. JH (talk page) 17:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I was, but it's fixed now :-) Schumi555 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for me too. Thanks for responding. JH (talk page) 17:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlist error 

message: I was wondering whether we could get a consensus on who should be included in the current squad section of international team pages. There's a wide mix at the moment. India and Pakistan seem to have the best format, listing pretty much every player that's played for them lately. New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies have lists with seemingly vague criteria, Sri Lanka doesn't have one at all, England merely lists the most recent ODI squad, Australia shows a load of contracted players.
May I suggest we take a similar approach to the one taken with football articles and list all the players who have played (rather than called-up, as with football) for the team in the last year. Or perhaps extend to 18 months, seeing as some players won't play for six months in the off-season. Renaming the section "Current players" would probably be in order too.
Incidentally, this should include Twenty20 players - whilst this may mean including a few players who wouldn't otherwise come near the international side, it's taken seriously these days. Maybe a field to a table could be included saying "forms played in".
Which brings me to the next point, the way they're formatted. The tables used for India and Pakistan are good, I think it'd be good to see them implemented across the board. 
So yeah, thoughts? Sorry this is a bit of a ramble. HornetMike 22:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, to respond to your Twenty20 point: the current England cricket team article does list the Twenty20 players, and not the ODI squad. My first thought is that your idea is attractive: it's sometimes hard to decide who is part of a squad and who is not, while it's much easier simply to list people who have played in the last X amount of time. (Some of the lists in Playfair Cricket Annual do this sort of thing, if memory serves.) Loganberry (Talk) 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current squad in international pages 

message: He's back again adding that ridiculous 'no free image' thing on cricketers pages eg Jimmy Adams. I thought he agreed to stop?
Crickettragic 04:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, there was no contact between himself and the project, but simply one or two users: despite their request for him to come here and comment. I would recommend taking this to WP:AN, see what they say on the matter. He's systematically going through thousands of bio articles and adding this image as it stands. There is no official policy on the inclusion of the image, so I would say it's down to the preference of a WikiProject (ie bio + cricket combined in this case) as to whether it should be included, and this WP's stance is pretty clear on it, yet he's ignored our request. The admin's noticeboard is the only place to go now, I feel. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:David Gerard]] 

message: At the moment, the tour article redirects to Bodyline, which is a FA. If the Bodyline article is supposed to describe the tour, rather than just the tactical theory and politics, then I think it would clearly fail FARC, since the article doesn't discuss the actual results and thus would fail the comprehensiveness criteria. So, should the series be un-redirected into a cricket results type article? Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Would say yes. JH (talk page) 09:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. It's not as if the Bodyline controversy was the only thing that happened on that tour, even if it was the one that made the most impact. Loganberry (Talk) 18:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too, to the extent that I've been bold enough to make a start, though only a start. It can easily be reverted if someone really objects. Johnlp 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[English cricket team in Australia in 1932-33]] and [[Bodyline]] 

message: Hi, I have reverted an edit dumping a large amount of copied and pasted text from the Cricinfo article.  It was copied from this this site.  As the site seems to be licenced under this licence, I am not sure if it is a copyright violation but at the least, it does not appear that the original authors have been credited for their work.  Those with more experience with copyleft licencing may be able to make more sense of that than me.
Also, even if this meets Wikipedia's licencing requirements, in its existing form the material is unencyclopaedic, not written in an appropriate tone or adequately referenced.  The history of Cricinfo would be fascinating and well worth including in the article but not in this form. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 160 kB. Wow. You did the right thing. Though I'm sure there is scope to condense it into something interesting, if anyone can be bothered to wade through it... Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realised that Cricket quiz regular User talk:Travisbasevi is presumably the Cricinfo staffer of the same moniker. —Moondyne 00:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricinfo 

message: I'd like to move "Twenty20" to "Twenty20 cricket". Because the latter page already exists this would require an administrator and would be awkward  to change back if i've made an error. So i thought i would canvass views to assert this is the correct thing to do.Operating 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason for changing it. There isn't any other sort of Twenty20, so adding "cricket" in the title isn't needed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If i were to say to someone "let's go watch some Twenty20". There's a good chance they'd say "What's Twenty20 then?". It looks colloquial to me. Operating 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that hypothetical conversation, you could just as easily replace Twenty20 with "cricket" or with "rugby" or whatever else you like. Andrew nixon 22:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the move isn't worth the effort. Operating 14:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move "Twenty20" to "Twenty20 cricket" 

message: Hello cricket folks
I've just declined a speedy delete request for 1970-71 West Indian cricket season. It does qualify under db-blank, but I'd rather bring it here in the hope that someone on this project could expand it just a tad to bring it out of the danger zone. Thanks. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the author responsible for this and many more like it, but I think it was a bad idea to create these things (it seemed a good idea at the time) because they are impractical.  I've decided to merge them into collective articles by country and time period, so I will be proposing that these individual stubs all get deleted in due course.  --BlackJack | talk page 09:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1970-71 West Indian cricket season]] 

message: It seems that someone thinks that I'm Cayman Islands player Ryan Ebanks. See the talk page of his article. Andrew nixon 08:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe you are Ryan Ebanks, but fortunately the anonymity of the WP system will protect your secret! Johnlp 16:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird... 

message: Please see this discussion for details.
I've decided to merge the "bare stub" season and tour articles into period histories by country but leaving as individual articles any that have been developed to a reasonable extent.  I've started with Pakistan and you can see what I'm up to if you look at History of cricket in Pakistan to 1970.  I'll follow this with Pakistan cricket from 1971 and then move onto the other countries.  
I think England is the only country for which we should keep individual articles about every season and tour because it has had a lot of work done while the rest simply haven't taken off.  When all this merging and rewriting is done, I'll propose that all the bare stubs encompassed by the new articles are speedy deleted as db-blank and db-author.
If anyone has any suggestions or if you can help with the mergers, please let me know.  --BlackJack | talk page 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blackjack, where you are merging articles I think you will need to redirect the old ones to the new to comply with GFDL. Will probably help anyone looking for a particular tour to find the right page anyway. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Ollie.  I had thought about that but I was put off because of the sheer volume involved, not just redirecting articles but altering the talk pages too.  Having said that, I think I would rather go through the tedious task of redirecting than deal with those deletion pages.  Has anyone else noticed in recent months that there is a distinct lack of participation in AfD and CfD nowadays?  --BlackJack | talk page 05:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category nominated for rename 

message: I've hit a little problem here. Cricket Archive implies we should sort the names of Atif Malik, Iqbal Siddiqi, Naveed Abdul in forename surname order, but a user who reversed this name order disagrees.
What order should we put them in? Bobo. 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Western publications, including Wisden, sort Pakistani names on the first name. (But not I think those of Indian Moslems, which seems illogical.) However I recall reading messages to the newsgroup rec.sport.cricket some years ago from at least one Pakistani poster claiming that this was the wrong thing to do. I bet that somewhere on Wikipedia itself there's an authoritative article on the correct way of ordering Pakistani names. JH (talk page) 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've wondered about this several times, and don't have an easy answer. Mention of CricketArchive reminds me that that site lists Sajid Mahmood the England Test player under M, calling him "SI Mahmood", but (for example) this Pakistani Sajid Mahmood under S, as "Sajid Mahmood". Loganberry (Talk) 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My memory is: one editor is adamant that we should sort them by their second names like all proper freedom-loving countries do. He changed them all; we objected; after some argument we agreed that he could change them in birth and death categories but we would sort them by first names in cricket-specific categories; he agreed to that; a few weeks later he came back and started changing them all again. Isn't there some Wikipedia-wide guidance, or at least somewhere we could ask? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is up to the Wikiproject to decide on name-ordering conventions. GizzaDiscuss © 11:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case I feel I was right to act in the way I did. Thank you for your backup, DaGizza. I hope the way I've ordered them is adequate for this project, at least. Bobo. 14:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am basing my line of thought on the fact that it is WikiProject Cricket that decides the notability guidelines WP:MOS for cricket-related articles. See the second and third boxes from the bottom on the main page. GizzaDiscuss © 04:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting of names 

message: Just got page to GA and hoping to make a push for A-class. Eventually want this to reach FA. I have already put it on peer review but thought I could get more useful comments here. Monsta666 16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wisden Trophy 

message: See this  :-)
I think the robot got it slightly wrong, there.  --BlackJack | talk page 13:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robot malfunction 

message: This is really in need of help, it's certainly nowhere near FA any more and I don't think the Project should allow it to slip away in a WP:FAR...  All hands to the pumps... The Rambling Man 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I've said before that the article should concentrate on the legend and the trophy.  The series list should be removed completely and replaced by a link to the series categories.  BlackJack | talk page 20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Ashes]]