Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 36

message: A couple of comments were made at Peer review regarding the Kevin Pietersen article, that I said I'd raise here to generate more views.
*In the infobox, for sections "5 wickets in a innings" and "10 in a match", it would be better to have "0" rather thatn a dash (unless the dash indicates information that is unknown)
*The achievements section looks messy.
:1. In the "Achievements" section, you may integrate the records and awards into a written section rather than dot points.
:2. Is it really necessary to have every man of the match performance?
As the infobox affects tons of articles, I was reluctant to change what I thought was 'policy' of "-" in the infobox, although by looking now at a selection of articles I see both forms (0 or -) are used quite a lot. As for the achievement section, I merely copied the format from Paul Collingwood the last contemporary player I can remember getting to FA. I assumed that if it was ok for one FA, it would be for another. Needless to say all of the records etc are mentioned in the full prose anyway.
I'd appreciate some feedback on these points, and another couple of peer reviews, perhaps from a cricketing POV would be good too.
Cheers,
–MDCollins (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Collingwood should have a zero rather than a dash there, since he has bowled in Tests. For players who haven't bowled, I'm never quite sure. Obviously their bowling average box gets a dash rather than a zero, but 5/10w? I don't know. Loganberry (Talk) 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think that's sound advice actually. If there was potential for it to occur, ie someone who has bowled but didn't take 5 wickets, a 0 is appropriate. If in effect it is n/a, – is probably better. Same also goes to stumpings, WK who haven't stumped should have a 0, fielders an –. –MDCollins (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's possible, but I dont think its something that statisticians keep a record of (because it doesn't happen), therefore we leave it out too. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 10:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics and tables in biographical articles. 

message: Hi., since June is already under way, moved 2003 Cricket World Cup as CCOTM based on max. number of votes. Letz get started on it and i shall try and see if i can match efforts on both 2003 and 2007 to make them FA level at the same time. However, as the 2 articles stand as of now, it needs a lot of photos. Can someone who attended these events volunteer for some snaps. Kalyan 14:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCOTM - 2003 Cricket World Cup 

message: () How many English captains would do that? --Dweller 11:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great example. Exactly the same first-innings score (50/8d) and they won. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It reminded me of this bizarre Test match. But that never happens in these days of covered pitches. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh - declaring to set a target of 73!  Brave.  By far the lowest target reached in this list.  Has any side managed to win a Test by declaring to set a target under 100, say? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Lowest score set with a third-innings declaration and successfully defended? Interesting question. I haven't found any very low ones, but here's another amusing match. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are none under 150. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably Brisbane 1950-51. It rained after Australia completed their first innings and the other three innings were played on a sticky. If ever a toss won a Test match it was this. Tintin 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the only one I can find under 200. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Could be famous last words? Somerset in the second innings have recovered from 50-5 to 323-7 and their lead is 121 as I write (Tea on day three of four). Something for the bowlers to bowl at! --Dweller 15:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it turns out...no.  This  was a good one by the master captain himself. Nick mallory 09:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about this for an aggressive declaration? 

message: Just thought I'd let you all know that thanks to substantial work from Trebor and myself, Kevin Pietersen has been nominated for FA. Can some of you take a look and review it please?
Cheers, –MDCollins (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KP (again) 

message: i was reviewing the Sydney Riot of 1879 when i went to the profile of one of the officials involved and found to my surpise that an article citing WIKIPEDIA work was present there. Check for yourselves by clicking here - the reference to wikipedia is right at the bottom, in the biblography section. Didn't know if someone had noted it earlier. If it was noted and discussed earlier, apologies for bring it back again. Kalyan 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/044783.html  The reference to CI's Edmund Barton article in Sydney_Riot_of_1879#Notes is unacceptable. Tintin 00:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. removed Edmund Barton article from notes/references section. Kalyan 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  did someone notice this earlier? 

message: Trying to establish consensus for preferred article name. Please contribute at Talk:Sticky dog. Thanks. --Dweller 09:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sticky dog]] / [[Sticky wicket]] 

message: I am reproducing feedback from non-cricket reviewer on Indian captains FLC - "I think it would be a bit more user friendly if the "Number 	Name 	Year 	Opposition 	Location 	Played 	Won 	Lost 	Drawn" row was inserted every 10 captains or so. Buc 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, they mean the header row, so that as you scroll down, you know what's what. It's not a bad idea, as (personally) I assumed the order would be WDL, not WLD (I guess that's what I'm used to seeing in British league tables of various sports). Perhaps make the breaks by decade, so it's logical and consistent. --Dweller 14:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, as above. See List of Australian ODI cricketers, where it's done every 50th player. 50 is too many on a captains' list as most players are going to have more than one row, in which case after every 10th captain or so would probably be best. By decade may work also, and in fact could well be better as the number of rows isn't going to change hugely per decade; it'll just have less captains listed in that time. AllynJ 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm. Technically drawn and tied are the same (the team shares points - 0.5 each) and hence what you allude makes sense. I looked at Cricinfo stats page and they follow the won/lost/tied format as well for the ODIs. Just a question here, would we change it for all the teams because England seem to have the same format. I don't mind changing the India page alone (because it is in FLC while England is not), but wanted to get a confirmation of the go-ahead before i do that. Let me know. --Kalyan 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you check now? I changed the Indian captains to W/L/D or T format. Please revert. Kalyan 05:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent. All consistent. What happened with the suggestion of repeating the header row as each list goes down? --Dweller 09:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done now, though i should add reluctantly, as i am not a big fan of the idea. But group decision rules and hence i added header rows for all except women's ODI (just 10 rows). Kalyan 10:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query raised in list article FLC review 

message: Small question here, planning on making the T20 equivalent of List of African XI ODI cricketers, but I'm unsure of one thing: did today's match actually have T20 status? Cricket Archive is listing it as being "misc" and Cricinfo doesn't clarify, though it does say "Only T20" which would suggest it is; though it has yet to update the stats on its pages (see Loots Bosman, for instance). Thankee. AllynJ 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I e-mailed Cricket Archive a couple of weeks ago about this, and they said that it isn't an official Twenty20 International. Same for the women's match. Andrew nixon 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I'm presuming there's T20 equivalent of List A, then... Quite surprising; I would've thought in this day and age of T20's growing popularity that domestic associations would be looking to integrate it with a name to encompass it, too. Thanks anyway, Andrew; shan't make those lists then. :) AllynJ 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Twenty20 equivalent of List A, currently given the imaginative name of Twenty20. This match doesn't even get put in that list though. Andrew nixon 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well looking at cricinfo, the domestic games of twenty20 is twenty20 while the international twenty20s are given twenty20 Internationals. But why is not given twenty20I status but the one-days are given ODI's, is it because the ACCs didn't ask the ICC for the status before hand?--THUGCHILDz 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, when the contracts were signed for the Afro-Asia Cup were signed, there was no official definition of Twenty20 International, hence the Twenty20 match is not an official T20I. The guy at Cricket Archive also informed me that it's unlikely that the Afro-Asia Cup will have official ODI status once the third has taken place. Andrew nixon 06:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bizarre, truly bizarre. Why would these ones not have ODI status when previous ones did? Ugh. Bureaucracy at it's silliest. AllynJ 10:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any doubt that they're ODIs. See , for example. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And it could yet be the heaviest defeat in any ODI. Africa 35/5, 282 behind. Record victory is 257. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look like it so much anymore, but they're still pretty much doomed unless Pollock beats Saeed Anwar's record. Complete mismatch, though the fact that there's one African making his ODI debut and at least another who has yet to play a single Test (excluding Kenyans) does kind of scream that it's not being taken too seriously... AllynJ 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dale Steyn made his ODI debut in the 2005 event. I think this would be a lot better if they had continental sides made up of non-test players, as with the MCC v Europe match at Lord's tomorrow. Andrew nixon 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have forgotten that the purpose is to raise money. So they need the big names. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I haven't forgotten that! I just think that the cricket on offer would be more competitive and interesting without the "big names"! Andrew nixon 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well a easy solution would be to have quotas on how many players each team could have from the test teams and the rest coming from the leading associates, after all the money is being raised for them and the exposure will also help them.--THUGCHILDz 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That was the supersub rule in place at the time. All ODIs had it. Odoyo does get a cap, as he was in the starting XI. Andrew nixon 15:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, excellent, thank you. AllynJ 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afro-Asia Cup 

message: When there's conflicting stats etc, what should we go by? I'm bringing this up is because of the conflicting run rate of the '87 cwc - cricinfo vs cricketarchive. Yeah not much of a big deal but this will serve as a precedent for future conflicting stats.--THUGCHILDz 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed a while ago. Consensus seemed to be to go with CA. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed -- I would assume that the difference is simply how many overs the team faced. CA explicitly states that it expands the overs faced to 50 if bowled out within the 50 overs (which is now standard practice in NRR calculations), whereas Cricinfo doesn't; and whilst I haven't checked the legitimacy of CA's claims, I would assume theirs is more accurate. AllynJ 18:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally raised this point but on further investigation found that Cricinfo actual disagrees with it's very own Wisden Almanack section I think that says it all. --Jpeeling 19:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In the Bopara case though, 134 is probably not needed because the Cricinfo report is almost certainly wrong. See the other reports at  . Jefferson is a good example. Tintin 13:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the 134 is wrong, but that's exactly my point. A reliable source (or what should be a reliable source and which other people are likely to regard as a reliable source) has got it wrong. I think it's valuable to the reader to document that. It explains why I chose the number I did, and why it may not agree with the report they're reading. Remember, our primary job is not to write essays but to document the reliable sources. Where they're wrong, we should still document what the reliable sources say, and explain why they're wrong. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This Cricinfo link says that Davidson took 12/123 at Kanpur 1957/58. He actually took 12/124 at Kanpur 1959/60. So if you see something like this in Cricinfo, will you still add it as a note in the article ? Tintin 00:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were talking about that match already, yes, I would. Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Cricinfo also doesn't update it's stats to reflect recent decisions. The non-white South African competitions from the 70s/80s were recently upgraded to first-class status, and cricinfo haven't updated their stats to reflect this. I've probably mentioned this before. Just look at the stats for players as high profile as Basil D'Oliveria (Cricinfo, CA) and Omar Henry (Cricinfo, CA) on the two sites. Andrew nixon 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also a lot of its world records for first-class matches seem not to have been updated since they were created as rec.sport.cricket posts years ago. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've found the biggest inaccuracy on cricinfo. Vincent Barnes, a South African player. 323 wickets at the incredible average of 11.95 on Cricket Archive  and just 19 wickets at 25.21 on cricinfo. Can anyone beat that? Andrew nixon 10:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well Blackjack, someone at Cricinfo must be reading, since now Derek was born in Bucks. He's another South African player with mising matches. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: yeah ok, cricinfo isn't the best source for statistics but I think saying it's utterly unreliable is going a little to far, don't you think?--THUGCHILDz 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Relatively unreliable than CA for stats, and generally doesn't respond if you report errors or fix them, but it is not as erroneous or bad as it is being made out to be. Tintin 04:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Much of its historical material is misleading because it does not edit content properly and does not use verifiable sources.  I try to write historical stuff and I gave up on cricinfo ages since because of all the errors and "garden paths" I was finding, including some of the sport's notorious "myths".  Evidently the statistical records are equally unreliable.  --BlackJack | talk page 09:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricinfo or CricketArchive? 

message: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/June#Cricket templates and stubs. I'm sure comments would be welcome there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as if Stephen and I have got our point across here already but if anyone else can weigh in, it would help.  The point is that they do not split the West Indian player stub category by West Indian states (which would be like splitting English players by county).  --BlackJack | talk page 07:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub sorting discussion 

message: Okay, so a month or so ago we had some discussion on changing the Lists of cricketers (see: here). We never came up with a proper answer as to how to do it, so I've gone and implemented it over at List of African XI ODI cricketers, complete with a fair bit of prose (especially considering they've only played 6 games). I was wondering if anyone had some final thoughts for changing these lists? I know one user had a real desire to remove the stats, but I personally strongly oppose such a move; and beyond that, it's just finalisation of the whole batting style/bowling style columns, and whether they should be replaced with "Speciality" or not. I'm thinking we should; it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a general style. I'm not even particularly familiar with some of the names on the African XI list and can instantly pick out all but 2 players where I could label them as either a batsman, bowler or all-rounder - I don't think it would be that NPOV-bait-ish. Of course there is the potential for vandalism, but I don't think it's so great that it's going be a real problem. Anyway, I'd like to take the list to FLC in the next few days pending your guys' thoughts & general approval, so thanks for any input people can give. AllynJ 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great. I think it is FL class. The only comment that i had was that you need to modify '5I' to '4I/5I'. That way, you will have some info. Thanks to Gavaskar and the wise men of ICC tech committee, bowlers are fast becoming a rare species. Kalyan 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what's somewhat bizarre? If I changed it to 4I/5I for bowling figures, it'd still say 0/0 for ever player... Pollock's 3/32 in the 1st ODI are the best bowling figures for an African XI player. Silly or what? :) AllynJ 19:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: i know but i had the asian XI list in mind when i made the suggestion (rafique is one 4I guy!), because that article needs a lot of work to bring it to the same level as the Africa XI and that article is a FL. mine was just a suggestion. you are welcome to ignore it. --Kalyan 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it sounds like a good idea; it'd certainly be a lot more effective on a list with more than 25~ players on it. Not to be on Test lists, since 5I/10M are already implemented in the basic idea for those (I think we decided on that, anyway). AllynJ 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of cricketers finalisation