Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 3

message: I'm wondering what people think about whether it's better to write a (reasonable) stub for as many cricketers as possible as quickly as possible, so that there's something to see if someone clicks on a player's name; or to take a slower and more methodical approach and write full articles straight off at the cost of leaving lots of redlinks for longer but with the benefit of having more professional-looking articles from the start.
Looking at the Wisden Cricketer of the Year article as a reasonable guide to notable cricketers, there are still a lot of redlinks to cricketers who should be covered in any good encyclopedia; and aside from those listed there, until Sam Vimes wrote an article yesterday there was nothing at all about Gareth Batty, for example. He may not have done much in the first Test against Bangladesh, but it seemed a little hard on him even so!
Personally I'm inclined to the first option I mentioned - that of making sure there's something on all the really big names - since, for example, I noticed last night that Vijay Merchant didn't have an entry at all. Given his notability as having the second-highest first-class average after Bradman I felt that was something that needed rectifying at once and so wrote a stub, but I don't really have the required knowledge to write a full-length piece on him. Any comments welcomed of course. Loganberry | Talk 11:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would like stubs - after all, they might invite some users to add more. And I know from writing the Batty article that writing articles takes a fair bit of time (and that's nowhere near the standard I'd like it to be at). Sam Vimes 20:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable to me; even (eg) "Dominic Cork was an English cricketer" would be something, I think, though a longer stub would of course be better. As for time, I reckon I can get a reasonable basic article on a cricketer I know a little about done in around an hour (Ian Austin took about that long), but it's a different story for something more comprehensive: Norman Gifford took three or four days. And this is a mighty WikiProject we're engaged on, as we all know - even my little mini-task of ensuring that every Worcestershire player who's appeared for England in recent years has an article is still some way from completion. Loganberry | Talk 22:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As shown by the fact that I had to write about Batty! ;) Sam Vimes 18:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, indeed so! Actually I was about to start work on that article when I noticed that you'd done it for me. =:P I have slowed down a bit on that, but the list I use to keep track of things, at User:Loganberry/Cricket, is being kept more or less up to date. Loganberry | Talk 23:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It is possible to get a reasonable stub together pretty quickly by paraphrasing the most notable facts from cricinfo and adding a stats infobox. In terms of preference, I think it would be better to work through the redlinks adding stubs that can be turned into complete articles, rather than being more methodical (obviously we would like full articles on everyone, but something about everyone is better than full articles about a small number of people, IMHO). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more or less what I've been doing in the last couple of days, though I've found CricketArchive useful as well for extra stats. I must admit I've not been putting in the infoboxes immediately, though, as they're rather fiddly and time-consuming to fill in. On the plus side, the stub I've written on Adam Hollioake means that all Wisden Cricketers of the Year back to 1999 now have something, and another 11 (I think) will take us back to the start of the 1990s. Loganberry | Talk 01:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantity v quality? 

message: I've discovered we have articles on both bowler and bowling. Should they be combined? Stephen Turner 18:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is "no".  Perhaps they should highlight one another more obviously, but given the fact that bowling has 25 subpages, keeping the man separate from the action is probably reasonable.  Guettarda 18:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowler or bowling? 

message: I have decided to leave the project. My reasons for doing so are on my userpage. I'd like to say that it was a pleasure working with you. Wikipedia's cricket articles are really going places. WikiProject Cricket has increased WP's cricket-related featured articles from 2 to 7, and the Ashes should become the eighth once it gets nominated. It's looking like we'll soon have our first featured list. We also have loads of articles on lots of cricketers, comprehensive coverage of the 2005 English cricket season and the 2005 ICC Intercontinental Cup (PLEASE KEEP THESE UP!). I wish you all and the WikiProject all the best, jguk 19:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very unfortunate turn of events and I have written to jguk to express my thanks at his efforts with Wikipedia's cricket coverage. Unfortunately I don't have time to keep 2005 English cricket season up to scratch myself but I will undertake to keep Frizzell County Championship Division Two in 2005 and National League Division Two in 2005 updated: can anyone do the same for the corresponding Division One pages? --Ngb 12:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've helped out with a lot of write-ups - I doubt they'll be AS detailed as they've been, but I'll certainly try and do my bit! I'd like to say goodbye to you here as well - hope it's not a final farewell... Sam Vimes 18:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to see you go as well, jguk. My strength is not really in the sort of "news" articles that things like 2005 English cricket season require, so I'm not sure whether I'll be able to do that much to help with those, but I'll try to keep up with the biographical articles, which I greatly enjoy writing. =:) Loganberry | Talk 23:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodbye 

message: This person has done some outstanding work but seems to have stopped after early May. Is he someone that we know under some other name ? Tintin 08:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of very detailed edits done by "IP address" editors; 128.250.128.41 and 203.221.28.94 are two others. They all seem to be in a similar style, so may well be the same person under different IPs. My only slight concern is that there are one or two phrases dotted around which seem to indicate that the text was written quite a long time ago; ie that it comes from another, unacknowledged, source. That could indicate copyright problems in some cases, less so on the very early cricketers but more so with someone like Derek Shackleton. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that, since they're extremely useful articles, but I would feel much happier if the editor worked under a consistent (and signed-in!) name. Loganberry (Talk) 14:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: They are some outstanding articles, but checking the contributions, I am wondering what prompted them?  Would be fantastic if he/she is some sort of cricket-loving writer who has got vast stores of information and rewords it; a quick Google of random phrases in some of their contributions found no internet matches.  Contributors like this one, if you're out there, sign up and keep up the good work!!!--Cory 18:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're clearly not from Wisden, which is one thing out of the way. (Though presumably we could in fact use large chunks from Wisden articles published before 1923, in line with US copyright law?) My initial impression was that they came (perhaps only slightly paraphrased) from pre-war cricket books, but I'm not so sure any more; if they are indeed original writing then I hope the author will be writing more! Loganberry (Talk) 23:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 128.250.128.42

message: Note that the old  templates for Player Profiles used in some players' "External links" sections no longer work now that Cricinfo's player pages are organised in a different way. I'm generally replacing them by straightforward links to the new URL; slightly more time-consuming but reliable - see Marcus Trescothick for an example. The old-style links in Infoboxes do still work, however. Loganberry (Talk) 00:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template still works, but the "ref=" has to be changed to the new URL - see Marcus Trescothick for an example :) I first notice that the cricinfo database straucture had changed a few weeks ago and have slowly been changing the references as and when, although I haven't had the time to work through all of the "What links here" from .  I think it is helpful to have a standard template for these sorts of referencs, like the  template. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, then. I thought I'd tried that without success, but I must have included a typo or something. Loganberry (Talk) 10:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricinfo templates