Talk:Cricket/Archive 5

message: I'd like to move Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket here, so that it can act as a true portal for readers who want to know about cricket. (Cricket will be moved to Cricket (sport) or Cricket (main article) and will be very prominently linked on the portal.) Clearly the Wikiportal itself needs to expand, and I would welcome contributions by others. But thought I mention it here to canvass views.
Note that the other Wikiportals are designed for editors - I would like a cricket one to be designed for readers - and to allow it to show off our better articles as well as be a good route in to all of Wikipedia's cricket content, jguk 09:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give this approach a bash - see how it works, jguk 21:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: no, all wikiportals are in the wikipedia namespace, the main article on cricket should be at cricket, this violates all wikipedia naming conventions that the main article on a topic should be at the most common name, which is in this case is cricket.  it also breaks the principle of least surprise: a link to cricket is assumed to take you to the main article. all other wikiportals are in the wikipedia namespace and so it breaks that too.  this is highly non-standard.  please change it back. clarkk 22:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it back.  However, I have also inserted a new page at Cricket (portal) containing Jguk's edits and mine to the portal.  Being bold on my own part, I have put a box that I created along the lines of Template:Sisterproject to go at the top of the page to reference the portal.  Can this idea get consensus?  Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically for making the wikiportals more accessible I created  which links to the portal in much the same way that  links languages to other wikis. Hopefully this will give the portal more visibility. -MarSch 14:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Only it's not really a WikiPortal. A WikiPortal is mostly for editors - this portal is for readers - so it's not really comparable. In time, I hope we will have a formal Portalspace with its own guidelines - for now, we'll try a different approach, jguk 16:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change in approach

message: The user Neonw [] has entered a link to a cricket messageboard in many pages. This messageboard was started just the other day and I can see the change only as an advertisement.
Do we tolerate such stuff ? There are a thousand cricket message boards on the net. IMHO, if we allow anything at all, it should be rec.sport.cricket and nothing else.
Tintin1107 21:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisements of messageboards

message: I would like to hear the opinions about adding external links to posts in rec.sport.cricket. People often post extracts from books. [link removed]  is a superb (partly fictitous) piece on GL Jessop, especially the last few paragraphs. But the book from which this is taken is not in the public domain. Is it alright to add a link to posts like these - we are not breaking any rules ourselves ? 
Tintin1107 15:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not - though there's always the option of putting extracts on Wikiquote. As long as an extract is not too long, there's no problem in putting it there. Kind regards, jguk 15:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rec.sport.cricket

message: In a bid to add pictures of cricketers to the various bigraphies - particularly historical persons, I wonder if anyone here knows what is the copyright status of copies of old cigarette cards.  Companies such as Wills and Capstan produced huge collections of caricatures and portraits and these are widely distributed on the 'Net.  - Ian 14:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of cricketers 

message: Isn't the singular of "innings" supposed to be "inning"?  This is what we call a single baseball inning in American English. If not, a usage note should be added. -- Beland 4 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)
:In American English, yes. In British English, and thus in cricket, it's called an innings. There is a note to contributors on top of the article and the section, plus a link to the word innings. I think that's enough personally, but perhaps it's worth adding a wee note. Sam Vimes 4 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
::I was going to point to the note to contributors and the contents of innings but you beat me to it.  FWIW, I think they should be sufficient.  -- ALoan (Talk) 4 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
::: Both of you beat me to it too; the article makes it amply clear by usage, and I personally don't see the necessity to add a usage note here. Perhaps in American and British English differences. Ambarish 4 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
::::I've added a small note in the appropriate place in American and British English differences. -dmmaus 05:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inning vs. innings