Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 30

message: A note to draw attention to a list that Tintin (and Johnlp - (edited by Tintin) ) has have compiled which puts the recent news in a bit of context. Are there others that we don't know about? Johnlp 09:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a depressing list. I think a nice addition would be differentiating those who have played international (ie. Test and/or ODI) cricket from those who have only reached first-class. GizzaChat © 09:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: David Hookes might merit a footnote, though the person charged with his manslaughter was acquitted. JH (talk page) 09:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Tertius Bosch and Hookes in the "other deaths" section. Tintin 11:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the Hookes wording a little. The original use of "responsible" could be taken as implying that, in spite of the verdict, you thought he was guilty, and thus could have been libellous! JH (talk page) 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Woolmer (again) 

message: I've updated this page with the 2007 selections, and also the pages of the five cricketers selected. JH (talk page) 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. I was interested by Wisden's choices. Ramprakash?! Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Averaging over a hundred in an English season is a rare feat. And bear in mind that it's primarily based on performances in England and that no-one can be chosen more than once. JH (talk page) 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just heard that he averaged that on Sky Sports News. That is sensational! When you say no one can be chosen more than once, do you mean, Kevin Pietersen, picked last year, could not be picked this year? Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wisden Cricketer of the Year]] 

message: A few of the county cricket articles have been updated for the 2007 season. Warwickshire's hasn't. Also it doesn't have a "current squad" like Lancashire and Leicestershire have for instance. Can somebody do it? I'd just balls it up Speedboy Salesman 14:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing SS, I've been through Derbyshire and Durham recently but haven't got as far as Warwickshire. I'll see what I can do in the next few hours. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 16:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sidenote here - while doing disambiguation for the table in the article, I did notice the article on Ian Westwood had been redirected to James Westwood, a nonsense article which I've nominated for speedy deletion. Just thought I'd mention it. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is James Westwood? Cheers AMBerry for doing all this. Speedboy Salesman 13:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct me if I'm wrong but why do Warwickshire have 3 overseas players, I thought you could only have two? Speedboy Salesman 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be that one is replacing another part way through the season. Alternatively, if either of the South Africans have not played for their country in the last 12 months, they don't count as an overseas player under the Kolpak ruling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: James Westwood is no-one, it was a nonsense article that's been speedied. As for the overseas matter, I think Ollie may be right, in fact my memory tells me Steyn and Harris are sharing the second overseas spot. I think. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warwickshire article 

message: A little help needed here. I'm pretty sure this article is a hoax and have marked it as such. Reason being that the content sounds remarkably similar to a biography of Eoin Morgan with the team names changed, Namibia didn't play ODIs in 2006, the link in the infobox goes to a player who has been dead since 1944 and searches on cricinfo and Cricket Archive reveal no such player. Can someone else just confirm and if I'm right, nominate it for deletion? (possibly speedy?) Andrew nixon 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost certainly not a cricket player, but chairman of British American Tobacco amongst other things. I've changed the article to reflect this. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. Should probably be kept an eye on in case some joker tries it on again. Andrew nixon 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a link to Jan du Plessis in the Sussex article under current squad, I've removed it but I suspect there could be other bogus bit floating around. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 11:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jan du Plessis]] 

message: I can't remember where we discussed it before, but  has taken it upon himself, in pretty much his first edits, to move One-day International (and various other articles with a similar title) to One-Day International, capitalising the "d" bcause the ICC website does that (the ICC also seem to capitalise "One-Day Cricket", "Test Cricket" and "Women's Cricket").  Should these moves be undone, or are we happy with "One-Day International"? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the "One-Day" version, but I don;t see it as massively important. Whichever version is chosen, there should be a redirect from the other. JH (talk page) 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Purely in the name of consistency across the site, I'd say stick with One-day. There must be an enormous number of articles which use that capitalisation, which we would effectively be declaring incorrect - it would be an enormous effort to change them all. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had another look at the ICC website and as far as I can see One-Day International is used consistently, everywhere except in their documents, i.e. pdf files covering rules, regulations, playing conditions etc. where One Day International is used throughout. It seems a bit odd to continue to use the One-day International variation when it is never used by the International Cricket Council. While I agree that it would take a while to change every player's page, I think this should be seen as a challenge, not an obstacle. -- Ktalon 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[One-Day International]] 

message: Is 4 in a row called double hat-trick anywhere ? The hat-trick article as well as Lasith Malinga says so. Tintin 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard it referred to as a triple hat-trick yesterday. The explanation made in hat-trick for double hat-trick does seem to make sense though. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Search on Google for [ "double hat trick" bowler ]. You'll find lots of references (including many from the last 24 hours!). Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad somebody else was worried by this to! I see I have started a nice little debate on the hat-trick talk page.  It looks like from all the comments at various places that at the phrase is contentious and should usage should probably be refrained. –MDCollins (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double hattrick 

message: I see that the Clark is just like Curtley Ambrose stuff is back. Didn't someone get blocked for this some time back? I'm on Wikibreak... please can project members keep an eye on it. --Dweller 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was semiprotected, I don't know about blocking anyone. Anyway, I'm keeping an eye on it for now. Enjoy your Wikibreak - though you don't seem to be being very successful ;) →Ollie (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, not that again. They had teams of sock puppets and/or meat puppets working on it last time. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can protect it, if need be.  I see some dubious edits to other articles too. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to [[Stuart Clark]] 

message: Since the "sprotect" tag was lifted a few weeks ago, this article has been vandalised again three times by the same moron, although his IP address has now been blocked despite protests from genuine (presumably) users at that establishment (a school in Nebraska, apparently).  
Is there any chance of the article being protected permanently so that it can only be edited by users with a minimum number of recorded edits? --BlackJack | talk page 17:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need. The article has been quiet for three weeks now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Samuel Britcher]] 

message: I was wondering if there should be an article Corruption in cricket? There is currently a very small article Betting controversies in cricket. Yet no doubt the issue is a huge one and is worthy of an article here. This came to mind after reading this article in the NZ Herald where one writer is arguing corruption makes the cricket world cup a joke. Any thoughts? - Shudda talk 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think its as a big now as it was before in the '90s because of ICC's strong stand against it and its anti corruption program, even if it still might exist its not that big.--Thugchildz 02:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's still very big. Even if it's not, the article would include a history of corruption in the game. I think an article like this would add significantly to cricket related content in Wikipedia. - Shudda talk 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be better to give the priority to that "Betting controversies in cricket" article. Though it says that it's "a history of cricket-related stub", it only deals with the last decade or so, when there's a lot to be said about the 18th and early 19th centuries, when the growth of the sport was largely driven by its suitability as a betting medium. JH (talk page) 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea, but you'll have to be careful to avoid original research. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's an issue here unless people start looking up primary sources and editorialising. There will certainly be lots written about this, certainly enough to avoid original research being necessary. - Shudda talk 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That article certainly needs expansion then. It's only a stub and only mentions one incident. Considering all the great cricket articles out there this one is incredibly poor. - Shudda talk 01:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Corruption is a major topic in cricket, more so then in many other sports (maybe not football, boxing or cycling though). It's not speculation. There have been all these reasons listed for the article not being larger and none of them add up. I don't want to assume bad faith, but it seems that there is an apathy to expanding this article because it's a negative aspect of cricket, not because it's unworthy of a detailed article. - Shudda talk 23:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the article I linked to at the top of this section, and read this one here from the bbc. It's not speculation, it happens, people have been banned, more people then the two mentioned in the Betting controversies in cricket article. Don't kid yourself that these are just rumours. There is even this list - List of cricketers banned for match fixing that's not comprehensive. Add to that players that have given pitch, and selection information to bookmakers and the list expands. Also read this Panorama transcript. It has people much more notable then you or I saying it is a problem. Just speculation? I don't think so. - Shudda talk 04:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption in cricket 

message: "Michael Phelps breaks five world records in swimming at the 2007 World Aquatics Championships; seven other records are broken as well."  That's in the INT but the cricket world cup which had so many records broken could be up there even though the pages are updated with those. Why is that?--Thugchildz 00:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  double standards 

message: The article, Cricket in Australia is the current Australian collaboration of the Fortnight.  Any assistance you can provide to assist WP:AUSTRALIA in our aim of getting this article to FA standard would be much appreciated.--Mattinbgn/ talk 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight 

message: Hello, i've written a series of articles today on Yorkshire First Class players and hope to write something about them all.  I was annoyed to see that a piece I'd written on Michael Bore (Mike Bore) the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire bowler was flagged for speedy deletion because supposedly i had not asserted the importance of the subject.  I assumed that any first class cricketer was worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.  Was this the action of a lone person who simply does not understand cricket or is it policy on Wikipedia to remove cricketers who are not fashionable enough? If someone could help me argue the case on the Michael Bore talk page I'd be grateful. Nick mallory 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not uncommon, but WP:BIO makes it clear that "competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are normally regarded as sufficiently notable. For cricket, that means first-class or List A. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of interest, should we now expand that to include players who have played Twenty20 cricket in a national competition? Andrew nixon 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The article os still there, and no lonmger flagged as a deletion candidate. Could you have mistyped the name? JH (talk page) 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Bore 

message: Rather oddly, the article entitled Wisden Cricketer's Almanac is actually a redirect to an article about the Wisden Group, rather than redirecting to Wisden Cricketers' Almanack as one would expect. The confusion caused by this has just led to me talking completely at cross-purposes with someone. I'll fix the redirect. JH (talk page) 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wisden confusion 

message: He is listed as one of the cricketer's who needs an article at the top of this page.  I can't find any reference to him though.  Who is he? I can't find any reference to James Pamment either.  Nick mallory 08:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, they probably are real people. But they may also be a further part of the phenomenon discussed in . That doesn't detract from their realness, but might affect your view of their priority. Johnlp 08:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There are two players named Andrew Ellis on Cricket Archive:  who currently plays for Canterbury, and has played for New Zealand Under-19s and  who played four first-class matches for Transvaal B in 1971 and then died on a nature reserve later the same year. I'd guess the current player is the one that the to-do list though, unless the 1971 player died in a rather grizzly manner on said nature reserve. Andrew nixon 09:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the mischief is still around. Unless, of course, Kirsten Pike's favourite film really is Copying Beethoven. Johnlp 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andy Ellis 

message: I have created a stub article on Peggy Antonio, the "Girl Grimmett" of the 1930s.  When I place the :Template:Infobox Cricketer on the article.  I found that the autolink to the national team went directly to the Australian men's team.  Is there a way of getting that template to point to the women's team that I am missing. --Mattinbgn/ talk 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the links to men's test cricket and ODIs.--Eva bd 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The way to do it is to set "nationality" as "Australian women's". Sam Vimes | Address me 10:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I see you have fixed the Peggy Antonio article for me.  Cheers --Mattinbgn/ talk 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it might be useful to make a template for female cricketers, though, to make links to women's Test cricket and so on. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You beat me to it, I had a redlink sitting there waiting for me! Good work. --Mattinbgn/ talk 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Cricketer