Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 29

message: A relatively new user has added a new template for the "ESPN Best Test XI" to various prominent cricketers, such as Donald Bradman, Imran Khan, Sachin Tendulkar and Ian Botham. My inclination is to remove them, but then I'm fairly anti-template anyway (preferring to use links and cross-references within text where possible). And I don't want to discourage a new author. So what do others think? Johnlp 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a pretty low-calibre award in the scheme of things. Given that it's a newbite, I'd suggest a polite referral to a debate here, rather than anything to upset and deter someone who clearly has much to offer the project. Nice one, Johnlp, bringing it to our attention. Even nicer that you didn't bite (of course... you're a gent). --Dweller 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely remove the template. I'm not even sure it's worth a category, personally. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call ESPN an authority on cricket and we don't have these templates for Richie Benaud's Greatest XI. On balance, I think it should go. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The only thing with real kudos doesn't really apply brilliantly, as it's not a full team (only 5 were designated) and it's not an all-time list, but just the 20th century. That'd be the Wisden Cricketers of the Century. The problem with cricket is that it's so old that comparisons of players from different eras become like comparisons of players of different sports, e.g. comparing Fred Spofforth with modern over-arm bowlers is impossible and actually ridiculous. I'd say we probably don't need to emulate the other sports with this. We're already submerging in templates and we should stick to the most useful. For example, I'd argue for removing 2003 World Cup templates, now that people are far more likely only to be interested in 2007 for the next couple of years. --Dweller 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spofforth bowled overarm, too. Robertson-Glasgow 16:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There's the Wisden Cricketer of the Year, but it's largely restricted to players who have appeared in England. There is already a category for that. Also John Woodcock a few years back produced his own list of who he regarded as the 100 greatest players of all time. JH (talk page) 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You can do it yourself. Tag it with  (write  on top of the page) Sam Vimes | Address me 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another template 

message: They plagiarised dozens of wiki cricket bios, complete with all the POV and OR violations. I'm amused that my newbie OR violations trumpeting Irfan Pathan as a future captain of the Indian cricket team have possibly reached the tables of millions of Indians. Fellow members of WP:CRIC, launch your careers as cricket commentators today, by putting OR violations and personal commentary into cricket biographies! (LOL)! Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link?  — Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 08:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See his userpage. Tintin 08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very amusing! There might a time when Cricinfo starts plagiarising! GizzaChat © 09:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cricinfo are already using our articles as sources for some of their profiles and stories, with proper references. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 12:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. That is going to get awfully incestuous, if we are not careful. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I know them as copyright traps. A wikipedia search for that redirects us to Fictitious entry. More examples there. Andrew nixon 20:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Times of India]] 

message: I noticed the portal advertised in the top line of Googly. Is this something we think should be done on cricket articles? --Dweller 14:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember having a discussion about this some time ago. I think it should only be on the most important (or best?) articles, and then only in the "See also" section. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. This plug looks uncomfortably like a disambig, to me. --Dweller 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even using the little icons, they should be in the See Also section. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Would going through cricket articles and adding these tags be something that User:CricketBot could do? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but no. I don't much like them at all, and I certainly think it's a bad idea to have them on most cricket articles. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree absolutely with Stephen. And, at the risk of sounding even grumpier than usual, I wonder whether the forest of signs and notices at the top of this page isn't getting a bit much. What with the template infestations as well... Perhaps one day we'll just go back to trying to create an encyclopedia instead of a billboard jungle. Sigh. Johnlp 23:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put! Although I don't mind them as much on talk pages. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket portal header 

message: I have been looking through the women's cricketer categories and found a bunch of stubby articles created on talk pages - Juliana Nero, Nicola Browne, Sara McGlashan, Suzie Bates, Clea Hoyte, Margaret Peden.  It is rather annoying that this is still going on.
Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/List of cricketers, I also found I had to undelete and expand Manoj Cheruparambil, deleted speedily as an A1 recently.  Does this happen often?  The list at User:CricketBot/stubs remains rather long (lots of Test players). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it's the vegan vandal at work again. I thought he'd gone away... Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been checking the IP's contributions and found a few more (cricketers, actors, All Blacks), including several earlier today. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk pages article creator, stubs, and lists 

message: I notice the 2006-07 one has an under-19 series in it. Should it be there? And, if so, should series like England A's series against Bangladesh A be added as well? HornetMike 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I started that series of articles, I included Test matches, ODI matches, U-19 matches, A tours, WCL qualifying matches and women's matches. It quickly got a bit out of hand to manage though. Remind me to clean up that 2006-07 one... Sam Vimes | Address me 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Season) in International cricket articles 

message: I proposed this on the talk page for the 2006-07 Ashes, but got no response. I reckon a well-designed averages table (like one find in the list of test players articles) would be able to give the reader an overview of what each player did in a series, without having to list full scorecards (which is what people started to do in that article). Thoughts? HornetMike 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice idea. --Dweller 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a couple in Pakistani cricket team in West Indies in 2005 and Bangladeshi cricket team in England in 2005, if you want inspiration. It's encyclopedic (IMO, but I'm not the best judge of such matters ;) ) but quite tiresome to compile! Sam Vimes | Address me 16:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought tour averages were a bit silly, especially for a two- or three-match series. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Averages in series articles 

message: Just thought WikiProject Cricket would be interested in the prod: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unofficial Twenty20 World Championship. - Ozzykhan 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unofficial Twenty20 World Championship]] 

message: Colly has now made it to featured article status, thanks to all involved!  The Rambling Man 09:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done to all, but particularly to you. Great stuff. Johnlp 10:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, back-slaps all round! Good stuff. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done - it's much better than it was when I started looking at it.  I've added a section to his talk page about his time in Australia (down the bottom) and I'm going to add some of that into the article, if people think that's fair? -Gavinio 12:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Collingwood 

message: Had a look through the articles.  Andrew Symonds is listed, but has no photo.  Is this right?  KingStrato 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it up so it actually shows. I wonder whether the quality is passable though? Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about someone from a minnow team. It would be a great way to promote cricket when for example, Canadian Wikipedians see one of their cricket players has become an FA. The problem is that a fair amount of updating will have to be done during the tournament for those who haven't played too much because the amount of matches they play in the WC will be of a greater proportion than experience ODI players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaGizza (talk • contribs) 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No free pics. That's the problem. If they are in flickr, obviously, I don't recognise them! Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, its hard to find and you have to look around a lot but if you guys do put decide to put in effort into a "big" minnow team cricketer than I'll put in the time to find a free pic of them or at least ask the owner to the pic to change the license to make it free.--Thugchildz 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you have a chat to anybody to free up pics for Irfan Pathan and Dinesh Karthik. Those articles should be ready (apart from the lack of the non-cricket interests). Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, I'll try but don't you think karthik's article's too short? Also could you guys try to get John Davison's article up to FA? It won't be that hard to find his pics as it would be for other associates because he's been playing in Australia but his canadian so that will get their interest; I would help but not really good at writing in bios.--Thugchildz 07:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: how do you know a minnow star isn't going to make any news during the tournament? There's been upsets in the wc by the minnows a few times in the past. Ryan ten Doeschate has a picture too, so can we put effort on him next? Or what about Mashrafe Mortaza, there's a sure chance BD could cause another upset next in the group stages and he's their best bowler...I really think we should do at least one minnow player, I can search/find the free pictures for 'em--Thugchildz 01:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody told me we had a pic of Ryan ten Doeschate! We can start on that now urgently, since Netherland's last group match is on March 22 and they are very likely to be knocked out before then. You should have simply added him to the template! Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If we're after a player with a reasonably short history, yet likely to play, how about Ian Bell?  He was on the list, but the photo was not considered good enough.  I have 38 cds of photos, and there's a very good one of him on there that I took a couple of years ago.  It'll take me a little while to dig it out.  Is it worth looking, given the article?  KingStrato 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've got another zoomed in photo. At the size it is on the infobox, themugshot scrapes in. But more players, yeah. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article drive template 

message: ... has now been nominated for featured article status here so all comments from all quarters are not only encouraged but welcomed and required in order to get this chap elevated before CWC'07 starts... Thanks to all who made it possible (at fear of sounding like an Oscar winner!) The Rambling Man 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adam Gilchrist]] 

message: ... has now been nominated for featured article status here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs) 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harbhajan Singh]] 

message: Is anybody confident in how to negotiate changes of picture licenses and how to get in contact with flickr contributors? If so,  has uploaded a picture of Harbhajan (which isn't actually free), I was wondering if anybody has the ability or desire to work out a deal with the author to see if we can use it (The same author also has good pictures of Irfan Pathan, which would enable another FA - Pathan is already GA with full chronology, as well as perhaps some others if we are quick enough). Thanks, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that photo is a simple copyvio and I've listed it for speedy deletion. It can be re-uploaded if we get permission, but I don't think most Flickr authors are willing to put a "sufficiently free" (meaning, not even non-commercial use only) licence on their photos. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flickr pics 

message: Started this article. I was looking for feedback into the best name for the article. hopefully I can make this FA too. It would be a lot shorter than on Sourav Ganguly himself and more accessible for the  campaign, as it is relevant to the current WC. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chappell Ganguly affair]] 

message: Can some admin find out why :Category:Unverified cricket images has suddenly disappeared? Was this a policy decision, or was it just deleted because it happened to be empty at the moment? If the latter, can someone please bring it back. I use this category a lot. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion summary says it was deleted "per User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted". I've no idea what the actual reason was. Try asking either User:Betacommand or User:Voice of All (who deleted it) or just recreate it yourself and see what happens - the images still seem to be there. --Cherry blossom tree 11:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea either.  I left a question at VOA's talk. —Moondyne 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by his talk page, he seems to have made a lot of people unhappy by deleting categories recently. Could some admin just restore it? I know I could recreate it, but it would be better to bring it back in its previous state. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks!Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Unverified cricket images]] 

message: Right, I've worked my socks off on this one now, I firmly believe I hold the WP record for citations, just the 192 citewebs, not to mention some brilliant (!) prose and hopefully good coverage of his career.  Please, please allow me to implore you to support or otherwise the article's elevation to featured article status, and as always, if it's anything other than a support, tell me how I can change your mind!  The Rambling Man 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adam Gilchrist|Adam Gilchrist FA nom]] 

message: I know that the big push of the project right now is the WC, but I'm hoping to start work on the History of United States cricket soon. This article is not very good right now and with my side out of international cricket indefinitely, I can only live in the past. Any help anyone can offer would be appreciated. This is just the next in line after Bart King, John Lester, George Patterson, and the Philadelphian cricket team. Thanks a lot.--Eva bd 03:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of United States cricket]] 

message: A storm in a teacup seems to be brewing about the Holding/Willey quote. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 31 year old memories of a radio broadcast are certainly interesting when compared to documented evidence! MDCollins (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brian Johnston]] 

message: An IP editor has tagged this as POV and sees weasel words in one section. I think it's not as bad as it was, say, six months ago, and can see only a couple of places where it veers off into being slightly too fond of its subject. But perhaps someone who hasn't had any input into its creation could take a look with fresh eyes. Johnlp 18:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Monty Panesar]] 

message: A user has prod-ed this article.  Since the user who created the article has retired from WP, I figured this would be the best place to see that the article gets needed attention.
Most of the other Australian cricket season articles are just as lacking in content, so they might get prod-ed, too.
  *Mishatx*-In\Out 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the many articles in this series are effectively empty too.  I appreciate a lot of work has gone into the template - but if nothing is there ... :-(  There was a similar issue at New Zealand and I notice a substantial contribution was made in response to the prod  --Golden Wattle  talk 05:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that this article should be deleted. Creating dozens of empty articles and planning to fill them up later is not the way we do things. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It wouldn't have been that hard to put some decent content in the articles. I'd much rather have red-links than empty articles in a way. A red-link encourages someone to create an article, whilst an almost empty article encourages them to have it deleted. Andrew nixon 10:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Not empty any longer so shouldn't be a candidate for AFD.  However, understand your concern over the other pages.  But a deletionist approach is a shame here, especially as the Wikiproject will inevitably fill in these articles.  We're making a lot of work for each other...  The Rambling Man 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not normally a deletionist but I believe a redlink is better than a place holder blue link.  If there is a blue link people do not realise there is no information.  To say that effectively people played cricket in Australia in any given summer since 1950 is not information! These stubs say nothing more than that.  The references they link to say nothing more than that - there is no clue of the games are notable or merely games. I question also whether every season is notable but am prepared to be convinced otherwise on that point if there is content.--Golden Wattle  talk 20:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could argue that they could even be speedied under criterion A3 ("Any article consisting only of [...] a rephrasing of the title"). Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but I don't like to use speedy if respected contributors created the article in good faith.  Two people have objected to the prod.  I would like to have some discussion here before taking it to AfD.  I am happy to be persuaded otherwise but I feel the content now added to that season is in fact just a rehash of the reference - we now have three games were played in the summer of 1877-78 - no other information about the games.  I appreciate wikipedia is a work in progress but none of these hundred or so articles say anything.  Even the seasons that are notable, for example 1931-32 are empty. Why create placeholders, why not wait until somebody wants to write something?  The original editor may have had something in mind but he has left wikipedia.--Golden Wattle  talk 21:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it would be rude to speedy them as they were created in good faith. But I would vote to delete them at AfD. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1877-78 Australian cricket season]] 

message: Here we go again: Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator)#Requested move redux =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear - it's the first time I've seen this debate. What a mess. Why can the compromise solution (the disambig page) be left alone? I dare say all of us here could push really hard for Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) to be moved, but we don't, and why should we? I would support a strong push to close this argument with a disambig page as quickly as possible. MDCollins (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated O'Reilly for this WikiProject's Collaboration of the Month. If he has a featured article, it'd help when the argument comes around again (in about a week and a half, no doubt) --Dweller 15:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RM : Bill O'Reilly 

message: Dunno about where you live, but Google.co.uk search page has a lovely cricket image today. --Dweller 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too @ google.co.in =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it just me, or does it look more like a baseball shot than a cricket shot? Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno about the shot (in front of square pull, a la Alec Stewart?) but why's he wearing half a tomato on his head? Also, his ribs would look interesting on an X-ray. --Dweller 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, tn the US, we've got nothing. --Eva bd 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google today 

message: Not wishing to be too boring but can I beg some of your time to hopefully make the final push on Adam Gilchrist to be elevated to FA?  Some of you have added comments, which hopefully have been addressed, some of you haven't added on opinion at all - we're so close...  The Rambling Man 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banging the same old drum 

message: Hope you've all seen the main page today. The Featured Article is about some strange sport, a bit like baseball that no-one plays or watches. Poop. --Dweller 09:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, congratulations to all involved. JH (talk page) 09:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page 

message: User:AlexNewArtBot looks interesting — it categorises new articles by subject. I've put a note at the owner's talk page asking if it can detect cricket articles.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article bot 

message: Is now a featured article - excellent work from all those involved, nice one! It's also one of the shortest FAC pages I've seen, so you must have done something right. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? It's 79kb long! GizzaChat © 10:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have opposed. It has no graphs, no tables as Collingwood does. Does not meet my levels of perfection. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, I should collate the data for his ICC bowling rating, since Raven4x4x is a bit uncertain about doing graphs and wickets and such. And I dug up a bit more about his doosra investigation which I can improve. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harbhajan Singh]] 

message: Can anyone help? I'm trying to work on the Marcus Trescothick article, and want to reference the number of games he has been England captain. I can filter the results on statsguru (cricinfo), but the resulting URL is absolutely huge, and impossible to manage. Any other suggestions?
MDCollins (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HowStat?  -- ALoan (Talk) 15:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what problem you have with long URLs. I often include them in quiz answers for example. <fx:Pokes ALoan>. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks guys. I just felt the long URLs were getting in the way. Doesn't really matter, but I'd forgotten about HowStat. MDCollins (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a problem with it, and it's mostly necessary on FAs. Harbhajan Singh and Paul Collingwood all have references to about 10 different cricinfo filters, to get the full details of their careers by the numbers. It also automatically updates, unlike a news piece, which will go out of date eventually. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing cricinfo statsguru 

message: An editor has removed all the images from the article, with justification provided at the article talk page. This is highly embarrassing on the day it's WP's FA. --Dweller 11:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he has a point, unfortunately. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, what can be done? I'd help myself, but I'm no expert on fair use images. I'd expect these concerns to be raised at FAC. The article was there for absolutely ages and every element of it was intimately dissected. He has a point, certainly, but this is awful and is a huge indictment of FAC. --Dweller 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was worried this might happen. I've had fair use troubles with this particular editor before. I guess the best thing we could use would be a picture of a cricket stadium or even a picture of an ODI. Surely someone who attended the Opening Ceremony to the World Cup posted photos onto the internet with free tags... --mdmanser 12:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the one and only free photo on Flickr that has anything to do with the world cup. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ali-sh/272980562/ --mdmanser 12:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, let's get something on the main page. The map's not an ideal illustration, but it looks professional and is no worse than a number of pictures that have appeared on there (the Buffy picture a few days ago was fairly dire). HornetMike 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, it does. I've added it now, but I think it'd could be a bit larger...take a look? Sam Vimes | Address me 13:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, double it in size I would think... The Rambling Man 13:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That seems fair enough. As non admins can't see those edit summaries (AFAIK) it might be worth the admins who make such chanegs dropping a line somewhere so us mortals understand what's going on. --Dweller 19:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why you can't see it - I don't think admin vision is required.  Note the relevant page was Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 13, 2007 - perhaps you don't understand that the main page is made up of transcluded pages. --Golden Wattle  talk 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you need to provide those arguments, where are they?--Golden Wattle  talk 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a shame they had to mess up the page on the day its on the main page and without even giving us a chance to reply and now that its not in the main page no one seems to care about the picture "fair use status" anymore...--Thugchildz 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  URGENT: Main page article 

message: Please take a look at the deletion request, people are making judgments and assuming bad faith which is causing them to do this. Please assume good faith and voice your opinion on this--Thugchildz 04:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you. It looks very like a copyvio to me, even if we can't find the original. And the deletion discussion has shown that the same Flickr user has uploaded at least one other photo which he certainly didn't take. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and I believe I've found the original now. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Cricket_World_Cup_trophy.png Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png] 

message: I just thought I'd let everyone know there is an AfD for: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 World Cup Matches. - Ozzykhan 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that AfD: would anyone have a rampant fit of deletionism if I introduced User:Sam Vimes/Sandbox13 into the main namespace - preferably as 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage - and would anyone have any comments to make on it? Apart from adding fixtures and tables, that is. (I agree in principle that the World Cup Matches article is pretty bad - just stating the scorecard without any attempt of tying them together - but I'd better check whether new waves hasn't gone over the project in the past week without me noticing... ;) ) Sam Vimes | Address me 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be better to have all the matches in one article, or is it better to split them into two or three articles? I'm not sure. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the articles could rapidly grow to 200 kB, at least judging by the general contributions around the 2006–07 season. At present it's 41 kB - almost perfect size. Think of the people on dial-up! Sam Vimes | Address me 22:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Does everyone have Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket on their watchlists? I tend not to put a notice here too if an AfD is already listed there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 World Cup Matches]] 

message: Well, this morning Raul654 promoted Adam Gilchrist to featured article status.  Phew!  Thanks to everyone who provided comments and suggestions and all those editors who made a difference!  The Rambling Man 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you did most of the work, the biggest plaudits go to you, TRM. --Dweller 10:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another FA 

message: An admin could now unprotect :Image:Cricket World Cup best results.png. Thanks, Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was never actually protected. Probably because I didn't remember that when I added it to the main page. *g* Sam Vimes | Address me 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I just believed the notice on it! Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to actually protect images on the Main Page these days - cascading protection gets them automatically when they appear on the Main Page.  Having looked just now, it still seem to be protected, but there is nothing in the protection log.  It must still be covered by cascading protection, but I can't see why. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect image please 

message: I'm new and I don't know how everything works with the main page but I'm being told that the World Cup won't be mentioned on the ITN section until a winner is discovered. Can nothing be done. If we have to improve the Opening Ceremony page, Cricinfo has a very good summary which can be used by the article to source an event-by-event summary. Sfdasfr 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we try and avoid protecting the featured article on the main page, so that new visitors can see that Wikipedia really is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We almost never protect articles which appear on the main page. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just be alert for "cricket is poop" and "cricket is gay" type witticisms tomorrow. Who said comedy is dead? --Dweller 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can have a link in the ITN column Cricket World Cup results. I remember there was something there for the Euro football tournament, the Olympics, and the Football World Cup. We should have this put up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that only happened for the Summer Olympics. A few people tried to add one for the Football World Cup and Winter Olympics but it didn't stick. --Cherry blossom tree 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the football WC stuck in the end. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, do the latter at least. Sfdasfr 06:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ITN is the In the news on the main page. GizzaChat © 06:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Speak to Mrs Slocombe. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone has to write a paragraph about today's game, else 2007 Cricket World Cup won't qualify as the article needs to be updated. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats a messed up!!!!1st blackjack now nobleeagle...hope he'll be back one day with different name...he was a great contributor!shit like this makes a lot of people frustrated and leave, I was thinking about it today because of all the hard of on the cwc and then someone comes messes it up but decided not to let them drive me away. I hope members of this project wont let things drive them away but deal with it. wish nobleeagle the best!--Thugchildz 04:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have asked about the ITN strapline at Template talk:In the news. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Main Page current comment from one editor indicates we can get the result of the entire tournament in ITN but no more. Further, it would of course, need to be an updated relevant article. We could either do it in the existing 2007 WC article, the World Cup FA, or create a new one just for the final. --Dweller 12:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is more discussion at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates.  Disappointing, but there we are.  I suspect that rather a lot of our Australian, Indian, Pakistani, UK, etc, readers are going to want a link from the Main Page.  I wonder what they will do for the 2008 Olympics. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thugchildz, I agree that Woolmer's death should be in ITN. (But I don't think that an ongoing link should be provided throughout the tournament, or every sport will want one). However, I would also like to say that your comments at WP:ITN/C are out of order, and make it less likely that this item will be accepted, not more. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup 

message: I notice the players aren't wearing special tournament numbers, just their normal ones. Therefore, what's the point in having the fake 1-15 numbers in the World Cup templates? HornetMike 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous discussions show that most people think the templates shouldn't be there at all. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, I agree, but seeing as they're there at the moment do you think it's worth getting rid of incorrect information? I may well do, if I have time. HornetMike 10:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup Template Numbers 

message: The story is getting more and more coverage in the British media. I don't know what happened as a result of the ITN discussion above, but it's a major story. --Dweller 18:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is substantial discussion of this very issue - support, even! - at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bob Woolmer]] 

message: Does anyone here have access to JSTOR and Taylor Francis group ? The latter has some useful articles on cricket history and the former should also have some. (Add : the TFP link doesn't seem to be right one. There is another that leads to articles available online for members) Tintin 07:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have access to both, through ATHENS, but not to all the content that each provide, only the individual bits that my institution is prepared to pay for. :) Which particular journals are you trying to get access to? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was specifically thinking about a long article on early Indian cricket in taylorandfrancis which often appears in google searches. I'll find the details and come back. Tintin 11:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JSOTR and Taylor-Francis press 

message: Where these talk pages are being moved into the mainspace, I think it would be a good idea to remove the redirect left on the talk page. The articles are mostly obscure stubs, and editors will probably not have created links to a talk page with no article, so I don't think they are needed. They will only serve to confuse editors, who will wonder why clicking on the talk button lands them back on the article. I've done the few that are linked on this page. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross namespace redirects

message: Perhaps it is not necessary, save to salvage the content and create redirects?  I don't know early Australian cricket at all well, but I see that the first first-class match was in February 1851, and the first Test was in 1876 (of course).  Does anything else of particular note happen between these dates?  Perhaps we only need one article between History of Australian cricket to 1850 and 1876-77 Australian cricket season, which would be History of Australian cricket from 1850 to 1876? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three English tours in 1861, 1862 and 1873 which should have seperate articles. Tintin 14:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  The early Test tours are all aggregated in History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883 without separate articles. I can't find separate articles for the early non-Test tours - presumably they could all be included in one article for 1850 to 1876, or would you propose a finer sub-division?  One for each year looks excessive, to be honest, given how little cricket seems to have been played and/or recorded. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this proposal - it seems a much better solution than having numerous short stubs. Let's start with the one article, if it gets too large we can easily split it. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks fine to me too. Can we also change 1856-57 Australian cricket season etc to a redirect to aritcles like History of Australian cricket from 1850 to 1876 so that the template will look neat ? Tintin 07:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done as per [[User:ALoan|ALoan] and Tintin, two of the most sensible people on the site.  Time for everyone else including me to learn lessons and move on. --BlackJack | talk page 07:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Most appreciated. I'll go ahead and make redirects to History of Australian cricket from 1850 to 1876, then. :) Sam Vimes | Address me 11:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aggregation?