Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 22

message: Visiting :Category:Cricket historians and writers, I revised the biography of Harold de Axxx by capitalizing 'De' in all of the category tags. That does not change the listing of his biography in any category but it puts every listing in proper alphabetical order, which is not case sensitive. That is, every category tag such as  
 de Axxx, Harold
must be revised to 
 De Axxx, Harold
--P64 03:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization in alphabetical order 

message: Could someone please have a look at John Anton to see whether I've got the idea? I hope so, but to be honest I'm getting a little bit disheartened, as the section title indicates.
As I indicate on my own userpage, I don't make any claims to being a great editor or to not making mistakes, and one of the things I'm not very good at is getting all the technical bits and bobs correct; I really do find that quite hard. I whole-heartedly agree with the need to cite verifiable sources, but keeping up with the ever-changing standards and guidelines of which section headings to use, where to put them, how to format footnotes, etc etc, is often just too much for me.
What I can do well is limited, but I think it's of some use: I can write short, readable biographical articles about cricketers with (usually!) excellent grammar, spelling and punctuation. They wouldn't make Wisden features, but as far as they go I don't think I've done too bad a job. I've been motivated enough to put in who knows how many hundred hours' work on the subject... but am I letting the side down by admitting that I simply can't summon up anything like the same enthusiasm for the matter of whether a section heading says "External links" or "References"? Loganberry (Talk) 00:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore all rules and write an encyclopedia article as you think it should be. Then someone with the enthusiasm for section titles will come along and change it, if the convention changes again. Something is better than nothing! :) Sam Vimes | Address me 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right of course. I'm afraid I was guilty last night of letting matters completely unrelated to Wikipedia cloud my mind and get me down, though I don't think I've let that leak into any actual articles. So... frankly I think I'm going to go back to the format that seems to have served me well over the last X number of months, but as you say I'm hardly going to complain if someone wants to spend their own time changing titles etc. Having my work mercilessly edited is a good thing! =;) Loganberry (Talk) 10:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather disheartened... 

message: Is it just me or do I smell copyvio addtions? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, from . Sam Vimes | Address me 07:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shanthakumaran Sreesanth]] 

message: Gene Nygaard insists on indexing him by Singh again.....Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he refused to see the point that Muslims and Sikhs sort their names differently the last time, so here's what I suggest: agree for the births and living people category, and sort properly in all categories of cricketers. IIRC that wasn't a problem. Sam Vimes | Address me 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indexing, eg [[Yuvraj Singh]] 

message: Re the link provided by JHall  : 1905 says "Last Test to be played to a finish if necessary. It was not until 1912 that the necessity arose when the last test at The Oval took four days". The idea is that if the last Test could alter the result of a series, it would be played to a finish. This situation came up in 1909. Australia was 2-1 up going into the last Test and that match ended in a draw. Does it mean that the rule did not apply to the 1909 matches ? Tintin (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was because Australia were the defending Ashes champions, and hence the result of the match would not change the destination of the Ashes in 1909. Andrew nixon 14:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in cricket history 

message: Please see Talk:John Warr. "He has the worst Test bowling average of anyone to have played for England." was inserted. I removed it per WP:LIVING, but I found one potentially reliable resource... but I know nothing about cricket, and understanding it is out of my not-even-laymen's perspective, as I detail on his talk page. Can someone please comment? TransUtopian 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Warr worst bowling average? 

message: Last hour I wrote the stub Position (team sports), which is a great step forward from nothing at all. It was quite a challenge simply finding some of the various articles for various sports and the current version certainly needs expansion by linking to more team sports.  
Now I have belatedly rediscovered the two articles on baseball or cricket batting order --which is collective, the assignment of an entire team to a complete set of batting positions. I see that the basic arrangement of Position (team sports) should probably be revised by or with someone who can answer the following questions about cricket. And I'll decide what to do about the article on batting position.
#Batting position. Is the term sometimes used in cricket? Or some equivalent term? Or only some indirection like "position in the batting order"?  
#Do any batting positions in cricket have their own names, other than cardinal or ordinal numbers? Are cardinals and ordinals both used? (Eg: Bradman never batted ten or eleven, even as a schoolboy! Bradman never batted tenth or eleventh, even as a schoolboy!)
#Quoting Batting order (cricket): The order in which the 11 players will bat is established prior to the commencement of a cricket match, but can be changed at the captain's discretion
:In what sense is it established before the match?  I don't suppose it is preprinted on scorecards sold to the audience; that would be unworkable if the captain uses discretion to change it even occasionally. --P64 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to your 2nd question: Generally the first two batsmen are called "openers", and occasionally the 3rd and 4th batsmen are called "first drop" and "second drop" respectively. Positions 4-7 are usually referred to as the "middle order" and about 8-11 as "tail-enders". You have things like "pinch hitters" and "nightwatchmen", but these are usually game-specific alterations to the batting order. I can't think of any other batting positions that would be given names. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of "first drop" and "second drop". Cardinal numbers are used. Yes, it is printed on the scorecards — the order is in practice known in advance — the captain is allowed to vary it as circumstances demand, but this is rarely done, except in the case of a nightwatchman. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done quite frequently in One-day cricket, perhaps through the promotion of a pinch hitter higher up the order according to the circumstances of the game. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 11:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard third drop, etc. used as well. I think the claim that the order is established before the match is incorrect. It is true that (particularly at the top level) the batting order not changed that much from match to match, and team lists may be presented in batting order in many places including scorecards and scoreboards, but this is a result of people wanting to have something to print, not actually part of the game. JPD (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we agree. That's why I said it's in practice known in advance. There's nothing official though. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A related point is that batting order gives the players the numbers by which they're identified on the scoreboard: or it used to until the advent of coloured clothing with names and numbers on the backs of shirts and the arrival of electronic scoreboards that can cope with players' names. I hadn't heard the "first drop" term before, but would recognise a "first-wicket-down batsman", but more usually just a "No 3 batsman". Openers are an interesting side-issue: some of them seem to be permanently No 1 or forever No 2, no matter what team they're playing for or their seniority, though obviously they go out to bat at the same time. Johnlp 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I definitely agree with how Steven put it, but I think the text in batting order is a bit misleading, and even more so if we take into account lower level games where there is no need to have an "expected batting order" used on programmes, scoreboards, etc. On top of that, there were many variations on how scoreboards used batting order or similar numbers. JPD (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position, batting and fielding 

message: A few months ago I added this article about a rather old but brilliant card game some of you may know about.  It would be good if other fans could look it over and amend it.  Is it appropriate for the cricket portal?  (ie can we put the little cricket ball picture etc?)  I know it could easily be part of card games as well, but I've found that 'Army' is far more likely to appeal to cricket fans than to card sharks! Sumitrahman 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armchair Cricket 

message: I noticed that there doesn't seem to be anything about the University Match, ie Oxford v Cambridge. I was thinking of writing a short piece, but I'm unsure of what would be the best title, whether I should provide any alternative titles with redirects, what links to it I should introduce within other articles (if any), and what categories it should have. Any suggestions? JH 16:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the Rugby Union game is under The Varsity Match, so I guess The Varsity Cricket Match would be the best title. Andrew nixon 17:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. I have an idea though that, traditionally, only the rugby match has been called the Varsity Match, with the cricket match usually being referred to as the University Match. JH 18:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Wisden also has it under that name. But University Match is a little vague, so University Match (cricket) would probably be the best title. Also, perhaps an article on university cricket in general could be useful. Andrew nixon 18:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that. I'll go with University Match (cricket). At this stage, I only envisage producing a stub - maybe three or four paragraphs. JH 13:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxford University Women's Cricket Club calls it a Varsity Match. Loganberry (Talk) 15:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford v Cambridge 

message: In an effort to break out of the loop we seem to be in and to move on, can I ask whether we have any news on the questions thrown up in earlier discussion on these two cricketers? It would be nice to think we can resolve some issues on this talk page. ;-o  Johnlp 17:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Roy Scott]] and [[Wasim Raja]], reprise 

message: In the article on Jack Hobbs we find:
He is generally regarded as the greatest English batsman of all time.
While in the one on Herbert Sutcliffe we have:
(Sutcliffe)... was arguably the greatest opening batsman in cricket history... 
So the Hobbs piece implies that Hobbs > Sutcliffe, but the Sutcliffe piece implies the reverse. Even making allowances for the qualifications "generally regarded" and "arguably", it's hard to reconcile the two. Personally, I would tend to put the WG of the 1870s ahead of both of them.
I suggest amending both of these claims, to read:
Many regard him as the greatest English batsman of all time.
(Sutcliffe)... was one of the greatest opening batsman in cricket history...
:Perhaps we need citations? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the first that might be useful. For the second, one might say something like: "As shown by his Test average, Sutcliffe was one of the greatest opening batsmen in cricket history." In other words, his average might be thought to provide sufficient evidence. JH 20:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not everyone reading the article is capable of drawing such conclusions from a batting average. What if we say: Sutcliffe's Test batting average is the highest among opening batsmen with more than 20 innings - and leave it there? Sam Vimes | Address me 20:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to say it was the 3rd best, or whatever it is, rather than one of the best (plus a citation :) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that Hobbs is the greatest English batsman of all time could be supported by reference to this which occurs later in the article: "In 2000, Hobbs was named by a 100-member panel of experts as the third of five Wisden Cricketers of the Century. Hobbs received 30 votes, behind Sir Donald Bradman (100 votes) and Sir Garfield Sobers (90 votes)." Since he received more votes than any other English batsman, it implies that he was the greatest English batsman of the 20th century. (Which neatly sidesteps the issue of whether he was greater than Grace.) JH 21:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hobbs and Sutcliffe - or the dangers of POV 

message: When updating Mark Vermeulen's article to mention his 10 year ban from English cricket, I noticed that :Template:Zimbabwe abbr does not appear to exist despite it being linked to by around 70 or 80 pages. Is there a reason why this template does not exist? Even if there is, something needs to be done to get rid of the red links on the 70 or 80 pages. Also, I don't seem to be able to get the reference to appear at the end, can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong? jguk 17:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's supposed to say "ZIM". It's something that was introduced a while ago by Joshurtree; it does give a standard abbreviation, assuming we've made all the templates first. Sam Vimes | Address me 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and when writing <references> you need to close the tag with a forward slash, so ! Sam Vimes | Address me 19:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, is there such a problem with writing "ZIM" that we need to write  instead? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Key thing is that it's standard across all templates that use "country = Zimbabwe" now. There's no abbreviation tag in the template any more. But yes, I think it's a bit redundant, especially with all the "country code alias Zimbabwe" floating around the place. Sam Vimes | Address me 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see - you add "Zimbabwe" and it finds the right abbreviation.  Still seems like a sledgehammer to crack a strained gnat (or something). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also means that we can only have one country listed, unless we are going to make "England/Scotland abbr", etc. templates as well. JPD (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Zimbabwe abbr 

message: Someone (an IP address, followed by three edits from User:Dar2020) posted a "detailed analysis of Hick's career" to his article today, and while there's a lot of good points to it, it could do with some citations and general POV clean-up (It's a little bit too sympathetic). See diff. So does anyone feel up to helping me with this, or guide Dar2020 in the intricate ways of Wikipedia? Sam Vimes | Address me 16:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Graeme Hick]] 

message: Hello. Just a quick note that I have expanded the Sehwag bio and put it up for review. It does cover his international career with a proper account, so now would be a good time to lay down a marker for a general style for writing bios on modern cricketers. Being a very mathematically oriented person, I have tended to be very statistical based in my analysis, and have tried to avoid making generalisations about his playing style , whcih is due to my tendency to not put in any technique analysis which cannot be verified statistically and because comments about his style could amount to "sourced POV" - anyway please have a look - we have had two FAs on cricketers before, one was about a schoolboy cricketer who did a sextuple century and another was a player from before the ODI era. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A poor showing, yes - we should add W. G. and the 5 Wisden Cricketers of the Century, at least (Warne will be the hardest as he is still playing, but Grace, Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers and Richards should not be too hard). -- ALoan (Talk) 04:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Virender Sehwag/archive1]] 

message: Someone has prodded Causes of death of English national cricket captains. Is there anyone here who is in favour of deletion ? Tintin (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know...I can sort of see the argument, but it angers me when people's only argument for deletion is "cruft". Sam Vimes | Address me 07:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete - it is not very interesting.  Would you want to add the information to English national cricket captains?  I would not, so why have this separate list, particularly when there are so many "living" (a cause of death for us all, I am sure!). -- ALoan (Talk) 09:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The list has now been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Causes of death of English national cricket captains. Go and make comments, for or against! Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prod 

message: You will all be pleased to know that we now have articles or stubs for every single team that is a member of the International Cricket Council, and the three teams that used to be members. At some point, I'll expand some of the articles, and add some articles on prospective ICC members, but for now I'm going to fill in the red links on . We're currently missing articles on four of the test teams there, which is a major oversight in my opinion. Andrew nixon 20:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - quick and most excellent work.  Hearty thanks and congratulations!  Have some oak leaves to add to the barnstar from just over a week ago!  -- ALoan (Talk) 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICC members all complete! 

message: Do we really need a succession of 5 navigation templates at the foot of his article? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be worth while making them collapsable with :Template:Tnavbar. josh (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that does not work for all skins. My question is really whether all of these templates add anything of substance to the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ian Botham]] - navigation templates

message: I've removed a huge chunk of material from Hick's article on the grounds that it was very largely an essay containing chunks of POV and original research, but have told the editor in question (Dar2020) that I would mention that here in case others felt I'd been too hasty. This diff shows what I removed; the only intermediate edit was the addition of the  template by Twisted-chinaman; I have of course retained that. Loganberry (Talk) 01:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you did the right thing. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Graeme Hick]] 

message: I do not feel I can do much more for the article Indian cricket team. It's already GA, PISA and been Peer Reviewed. I just request people to give it a quick copyedit and review it before it goes up for FAC. I'm also wondering as to how many citations are required in this page, because it really has very few citations. Most things on the page are obvious but considering the people who vote in FACs are sometimes not from cricketing nations, I don't know how many I should put up. Thanks. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 01:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indian_cricket_team#History could do with a major rewrite. At the moment, it reads like a random selection of people and events rather than a proper history. There are too many factual errors . For eg, the very first line says that "Cricket was introduced to India during the late 1800s, brought on as a result of the British rule of the nation." The earliest mention of cricket in India is from 1721 and Parsis have been playing cricket atleast from 1839. Tintin (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment. I'll work on that tomorrow. Can you provide a source as to the origins of cricket in India? Nobleeagle  (Talk) 05:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference for 1721 can be found in the reference section in Cricket in India (I know the person who wrote it. He dug up the Downing book from a library for it !). I'll find the details of 1839 in one or two days. Tintin (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You may find this article from Wisden useful:  Dates in Indian cricket history JH 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last check-up for [[Indian cricket team]] 

message: Talk:Bill_O%27Reilly#New_Vote_on_Disambiguation_page Tintin (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the argument cordial discussion over the locations of cricket / cricket (disambiguation) / cricket (insect) could be reopening.  See Talk:Bill_O%27Reilly and Talk:Cricket (disambiguation). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The O'Reilly discussion still seems to be live: an earlier comment that seemed to concede that the status quo should be maintained has been overwritten. Johnlp 08:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly dab 

message: Just to let you all know that I've now completed the red-links in . We now have stubs at the least for all women's national teams (that I know of). I've also expanded on some of the articles that were already there, and some still need expansion, especially Australian women's cricket team and Indian women's cricket team. Andrew nixon 09:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blimey. You are a hero. Have some swords to add to the oakleaves. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We're running out of awards, aren't we... :D Still, agreed. Well done Andrew. Sam Vimes | Address me 11:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank's guys. I'm not running out of things to do though, and have just created an article on the Philadelphian cricket team that played first class cricket until the First World War. Andrew nixon 11:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am saving up the diamonds and the gold star ;) ... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent. :) JH 10:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's teams redlinks 

message: Maybe not the best place to ask, but someone might know. I'm going to be writing a quick article on the early 20th Century Dutch cricketer Carst Posthuma  and his cricinfo profile contains three photos, all of which are marked with "We have been unable to ascertain copyright details for this picture." The one I'd like to use is this one which does have a date on it (12 August 1901). The way I understand copyright on photos is that when the author is unknown, it expires 70 years after the date the photograph was taken. So am I right, and is it safe to upload this image, and if so what tag should I put on it? Andrew nixon 13:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 12(2), as amended: "If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first made available to the public." So it looks like you're in the clear with a 1901 photo. I can't answer definitively about which tag should be used, but there is a  tag which ought to do if nothing more specific is around. Loganberry (Talk) 02:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question on old photos