Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 11

message: I've had a bash at adding a new section on the WP:Cricket project page (at the bottom) to reflect the above discussion on initials and a couple of other (what I thought were) agreed styles.  Still needs a sentence or two on scoring formats though. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do New Zealand use 1/141 for a team score? I thought it was only Australia? Stephen Turner 06:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that one because I thought they did - I might be wrong, I'll check some Kiwi news sources. Sam Vimes 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Hm, appears that was wrong.   and  Sam Vimes 06:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Seems okay, though personally I still think that "4-17" looks nicer than "4/17" for bowling figures, and distinguishes it from "4/17" as an Australian team score; I'm inclined to carry on with the hyphens (they're not links after all, so it's less important than cricketers' names), though if others change it then I certainly have better things to do than to revert. Maybe doing a Wisden and writing four for 17 would solve the problem. I think I've also seen some Bangladesh-related articles (not on WP) use the "Australian" format for team scores, though I don't know whether this is usual there or whether it's simply that the authors were Australians. Loganberry (Talk) 23:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with 4-17 for bowlers if there's consensus -- Ian ≡ talk 23:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And if there's a consensus against it, then of course I'm willing to change to 4/17. Loganberry (Talk) 12:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I tend to write "four wickets for 17 runs" - it's cumbersome, but it explains terminology a little bit better to people who aren't that familiar with the sport. I think, anyway. Don't really care anyway, but 4-17 looks nicer. Sam Vimes 16:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we put this to bed as something like: Bowling format: Use "4-17" or "four wickets for 17 runs", depending on the article creator's personal preference? -- Ian ≡ talk 14:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: We have. See: WP:Cricket Cricket article style guide section (at bottom), which seems to me to be a pefectly sensible place for it. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Why shouldn't they be given as 4 for 240 if the teams in question are both Australian? No point in imposing on the Australian readers an unfamiliar notation - as WP guidelines say, use the language relevant to the country in question. Sam Vimes 20:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 240 for 4 notation will not be unfamiliar to Australians as it is used enough in international cricket. Australia is alone in the cricketing world in using this format, and it makes sense to have just one standard on WP, jguk 20:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, I'd like some Aussie opinion. Personally I don't mind too much as long as it's the same within the article Sam Vimes 21:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd definitely prefer to see articles about Australian cricket use the Australian format. Cricinfo can so why can't we? (, ). As stated above: use the language relevant to the country in question. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I've replaced the  tags with a simple comment mentioning that the section is disputed, since the  tag refers to the factual accuracy of something being disupted, whereas this argument is a matter of opinion rather than a question of fact. Loganberry (Talk) 12:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket article style guide 

message: What about creating a seperate page for recently updated articles ? In the current form it can support very few. Tintin 18:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently updated articles 

message: I've just gone ahead and invited a couple of old cricket contributors. I was thinking of making a welcome template to greet new signups. I'll store it here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/hello and subst: to the signee's talk page. How's this: Please feel free to contribute/word it.
Hi! Welcome to Wikiproject! We hope ....' =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike templates for hi-things and welcome-things, personally. It gets a bit less personal then Sam Vimes 21:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitations 

message: (also, see Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Sports results for a bit on what has prompted these comments)
Woohoo! ;) Sorry for having caused so much bother with these articles - on the amount of bad publicity it's given WP:Cricket, it could be argued that the whole thing should perhaps be tossed in the big deletion dustbin. ;) Now that it is in the Wikipedia database, however, I suppose we need to decide (really, honestly, no three lines of discussion and get it over with) what to do with these articles. It's perhaps a bit stupid to take it here since it's mainly me and jguk who edits these articles, but as they're relevant to cricket and I'd value all opinions, I'm going to put it here.
Personally, I say we need to merge them - I know jguk disagrees, but IMO we've repeated so many times over that we're going to merge them, and in any case a sporting match is utterly non-notable out of its context within the season - a bit like a concert is non-notable out of its tour (wow. I'm sounding like a deletionist). The question then becomes - how? Any friendly admins willing to help with the final stage? Or are we just going to defend these woefully inadequate (standing on their own) part-articles ad absurdum? It just seems so pointless to create more and more work for ourselves when we know they're going to be AfDed again and again and again. 
Also, I doubt this is a good method to start the 2005-06 seasons with - either we should write the match reports as parts of single competitions, or we should give a toss about the mirror sites and use the method that jguk started the 2005 season with last year (preceding the part-articles with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket), or we should use subst after every match and store the part-articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket namespace (not sure what this would achieve, apart from ease of editing for people who don't get transclusion - but if we keep good enough lists of the relevant part-articles, which is done anyway, then it would basically be almost the same amount of work as the current method).
Anything else that ought to be done? Sectioning the team pages into months, and also rewriting the lead-in and weaving that into the article (because at the moment it might not be entirely clear what competition each match belongs to, nor its context within the season). A bit of a language and NPOV clean-up? Sam Vimes 21:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think you sound like a mergist!  I reckon the content should be merged.  Apart from anything, we currently have two sets of articles that look funny (the season articles and the match articles).  All the articles should be subst'ed and then streamlined: I am happy to do some of this work if I have the time.  I think then that the match articles themselves should be deleted.  This is mainly because I can't think where to redirect them.  On the other hand, I guess they could be redirected to the generic 2005 English cricket season article, or the relevant section of that.  If WP:Cricket wants to get a better reputation, we have to do something with these.  We can't just ignore community consensus: people don't want these articles on their own.  Hell, I don't want them on their own.  Sam Korn 21:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fairly obvious where to redirect them to, IMO - 2005 English cricket season (15 April-30 April) and following articles. Assuming we keep those. Otherwise, agree 100 % Sam Vimes 21:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 English cricket season - finally over 

message: The article about Saurav Ganguly is having trouble with vandals at the moment. It would be helpful if some other people could add it to their watchlists, and revert any NPOV-ness as quickly as possible. The article is pretty bad at the moment, but there's no reason to allow it to get worse. Thanks. Stephen Turner 14:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Saurav Ganguly]] 

message: This IP editor has added links to his site to a number of pages. Not sure whether to retain them or clean up. They are not irrelevant, but not too good either. Tintin 22:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My complaint is that they are not particularly well-written, authentic or 'good'. I wouldn't have bothered about them otherwise. I am not sure about the popularity, but all the links in Pakistani (& Lillee) player pages were added by three IP editors in CA- 192.212.11.40, 216.226.168.4 and 129.212.11.23 Tintin 12:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't read the targets, but I would say if they're not any good, get rid of them (WP:BOLD). Stephen Turner 13:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link spam? 

message: These two were allegedly both involved in the "2005 Ashes sex scandal", but given that you'd think they'd have rather better Google Test results (, )... I'm putting both articles up on AfD as hoaxes - here for Samuels and here for Stern. I made a bit of a hash of the nomination procedure thanks to a combination of hopeless unresponsiveness and personal idiocy (eg writing "Joseph" for "Jacob"), but I think they're right now. I mention this here in case I've made some terrible mistake and these two do in fact exist. Loganberry (Talk) 14:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nathan Jacob Samuels]] / [[Dane Stern]] 

message: Kepler Wessels has 21!  Can you beat that? -- Ian ≡ talk 16:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should start a new :Category:Cricketers in more than 15 other categories. Stephen Turner 16:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Is that a challenge to create more categories? :) Guettarda 16:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricketer with most categories 

message: Feedback needed: How is this image: thumb? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Far too small to make anything out, jguk 07:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's svg, you can scale it up; should I increase the font size then? I've drawn it to scale, so that's why it looks tiny. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG: feedback 

message: I plan to replace this image with an SVG version. Please let me know if there are any missing positions/ inaccurate positions. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also want to know which of these positions come inside the 15 yard circle. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Quick comments: I would say gully is standing a bit deep, and the high-numbered slips are maybe too far forward. There is no "cover", only variants of cover. I like the way this picture shows the "short", "square" etc. prefixes. Stephen Turner 11:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the corrections. I didn't see any cover on the image though. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that the picture has no cover, but it should have. Stephen Turner 11:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You shdn't hesitate to go with even larger circles. Picture looks cramped and very crowded in its present size. --Peripatetic 22:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've drawn it almost to scale. (10px=1m) But I'll have exaggerate the 15 yard circle a bit for the fielding positions diagram. I'm not sure what you mean by cramped. The image is an SVG image, ie a vector image that can be scaled to any resolution without pixellation. Full size =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fielding positions; plz check 

message: I'd like to draw everyone's attention to an edit war taking place at ICC Super Series 2005 at the moment between PaddyBriggs — who is claiming most statisticians won't accept the matches as official Tests and ODIs and so is putting all instances of "Test" and "ODI" in quotes — and jguk and myself who are basically reverting his changes. Stephen Turner 10:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My take on this is that the ICC has stated that these games are official ODIs and Tests and that therefore we should report them as such. As an encyclopaedia we report, we do not decide. We can, do, and should note the concern expressed by many cricket statisticians and historians. The two points Paddy is looking for are strengthening up the opposition to suggest that statisticians and historians are the determiners of official status and to place Test and ODI in quotation marks - so that we imply throughout that they may not be proper Tests and ODIs. Other views would be welcome, jguk 10:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I agree with all jguk's points, may I suggest we keep the discussion on the article's talk page so that we don't end up having the same discussion in two places? Stephen Turner 10:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war at [[ICC Super Series 2005]] 

message: However, there is a related issue, which it is perhaps best to discuss on this page. We did discuss it briefly before, but it might be as well to bring it up again and reach a conclusion.
The issue is, which set of stats are we to use for the players' infoboxes — the stats including the disputed matches (which I shall refer to as the ICC stats), or the stats without those matches (which I shall refer to as the Bill Frindall stats, as he seems to be the chief spokesman for the exclusionists)?
We already have this issue for ODIs because of the Tsunami match and the Asia vs Africa matches. I think we always use the ICC stats, if only because that's what we get from Cricinfo. It's certainly the case for Brian Lara and Shoaib Akhtar, whom I just checked.
My own view is that the ICC made a mistake awarding official status to these matches. I didn't mind too much about the ODIs, but I think the Test match is a big mistake. However, I think that what the ICC say has to be taken as the official view, and the one we should report. I think we should add this to the style guide box.
Would anyone else like to comment?
Stephen Turner 11:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have to go with the ICC stats. It's WP's role to report, not to decide. If the "alternative" stats gain currency (and if Frindall carries out what he says, they will gain some currency), we can always add a short footnote to the ICC-defined stats later, jguk 14:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The rationale? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, jguk 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Another factor in favour of using Cricinfo (and CricketArchive) stats is that they make it very easy for readers to verify the figures given in Wikipedia articles. I don't agree with all of them (for me Hobbs will always have 197 hundreds, not 199) but they are solid, respected sites to cite in support of our own writing. I think jguk's comment above about using ICC stats but adding a note if necessary is sensible: after all, the Hobbs article refers to the discrepancy already, presumably because the 197 figure is so widely known. Loganberry (Talk) 13:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related issue: which stats in infoboxes? 

message: I tried to move C L R James to CLR James per the consensus that emerged when we discussed this before. But I was unable to do so because the target page already existed (even though it was just a redirect back to the same article).
It seems that I'm now meant to go Wikipedia:Requested moves to get the move done, but it also seems that that page is really for moves which are controversial and need discussion. There's a five-day wait period, plus an unknown backlog. In this case we've reached consensus and I really don't want to have to go through the whole debate about correct name forms again. So I'm wondering if there's any way to bypass this and get a friendly admin to move the pages. Any suggestions?
Stephen Turner 12:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try a friendly admin - if you list it on Requested Moves it'll get moved to C. L. R. James in line with the standard WP naming convention, jguk 12:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem, CLR James. I haven't corrected the double redirects, there are two, so someone please correct them. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  C L R James again 

message: I've taken a punt and added West Indian cricket team and History of Test cricket (1890 to 1900) to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I'm not looking for blind "support" votes, which won't go down well anyway - but useful and constructive comments will be welcome, jguk 15:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've objected. It needs a lot of work, and I've stalled after reviewing two paragraphs. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]] 

message: Cricket club up for deletion. Not sure what to do with this one myself - would value some input Sam Vimes 20:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say (and am saying!) keep; a number of factors in its favour which, while possibly not quite enough on their own, probably are when taken together. The Birmingham and District Premier League article is a bit of a mess, though, which may not have helped its case at first. Loganberry (Talk) 13:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coventry and North Warwicks Cricket Club]] 

message: The tag for :Image:West Indies Cricket Board Flag.png has been changed from  to  - "under a non-commercial-use only licence", apparently - which means we can't use it. Personally I don't see why we couldn't use , but maybe I'm missing something. 
Also, there are now no less than three WICB flags in use on Wikipedia:
# :Image:West Indies Cricket Board Flag.png
# :Image:West Indies Cricket Board Flag.PNG
# :Image:West Indies Cricket Board Flag.jpg
Can we decide which one is best, and stick to it? Loganberry (Talk) 13:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one is the best. I thought the WI flag was more maroon. Should I have a go at the red? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with your choice, and by all means have a go at the colours. Make sure you use a tag that's not going to get the current "will be considered for deletion" notice attached to it if you do change it, though; as I say, I'd be inclined to use  but I don't have a strong objection if you can think of a better one. Loganberry (Talk) 00:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Indies Cricket Board flags 

message: Does anyone have some freely licensed pictures to illustrate the West Indian cricket team article? I'm trying to get this to be a featured article, but probably need more piccis. We don't seem to have much already on WP, jguk 18:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about getting magazine and book covers featuring the WI team? IMO they are more fair than stealing photos. The captions would have to be carefully worded though. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the law regards them any differently. Except for the purpose of commenting on the magazine/book rather than the subjects of the photo. Stephen Turner 08:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the various cover templates (, ,  etc.) have recently been updated to reflect this. --Ngb ?!? 09:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I meant this: if we could weave the name of the book into the text, we could possibly add this image: . We would be discussing the book, and at the same time will have a f.u. image. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quote: "the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate the book in question qualifies as fair use". Other uses are reckoned to be copyvio. All this DOES sound quite nitpicky. I guess the best thing to do is to hunt for covers of biographies for all the modern cricketers that we know. --Peripatetic 18:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Indian cricket team pictures