Talk:Billy Beldham

message: The article needs a complete revision and every single statement in the "Career" section must be verified.  In its present state, it has completely failed all the rating criteria with "no" given to all six questions.  As a result, I've reverted it to stub-class.  
I've removed the infobox which was completely misleading in view of the incomplete records of Beldham's time and the lack of any consistent view about statistics in the period.  The infobox quoted CricketArchive's record of Beldham since 1801 and ignored his performances in "major matches" for over 15 years before that.  Until there is some generally accepted consensus about statistics from the thirty years either side of 1800, it is pointless trying to summarise them in this way.  For example, how can a batting average be computed when we don't even know how many times he was not out?
The only thing that can be done in the statistical (i.e., lies and damned lies) sense is to calculate his known appearances, runs, wickets and catches in all "major" or "first-class" matches during his known career and mention this in the body of the article with a clear caveat to the effect that they are figures based on the known facts only.  
I'll work on the article myself when I have time but it is going to need a lot of effort.  --BlackJack | talk page 05:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on a Beldham/Hambledon website, and have the stats from the known and recorded matches 1785-1821. A batting average is possible, with the caveat that he doubtless played many more games that aren't listed. Andrew G. Doe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.23.255 (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As of today, the article has been drastically reduced with the removal of all speculative rubbish and other stuff that, although true, has not been verified.  I have left a few points in with the "cn" tag attached as I think they are in Haygarth and I can check those quite soon.  I think we now have a solid base for proper development.  --Jack | talk page 06:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not outs" were recorded from the 1773 season onwards, thus it's perfectly possible for an accurate average to be calculated, with, of coruse, the caveat that these are known games and not all games played. Further, CricketArchive have now re-evaluated their stance on when the first class game began, and have pushed the start date back to 1772, and the habitual use of scorecards. Thus, Beldham now has 189 known first class games to his credit, scoring 7045 runs at an average of 21.47. AGD  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.50.141 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I chose Underdown as the source because he presents the information in the most logical and readable fashion.  The only source for Beldham playing in a Hambledon/Hampshire team in 1785 is Beldham himself via Pycroft and, as that is verifiable, we have to accept it despite there admittedly being doubt.  You've hit the nail on the head when you blame the Lord's fire.  I wouldn't be surprised if literally hundreds of unique records were lost.  We have to assume George Beldham was active in 1780: Mr Mote clearly made an error in assuming otherwise but there is no need to mention this in the article and it should be ignored, especially as we have the Underdown evidence that can safely be cited.  ----Jack | talk page 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your opinion of John Goulstone's book ? I see you removed it as a source. I admire the scholarship & depth of research, but possibly a few too many family trees, and oh, the writing style is so dry !  Andrew G. Doe (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A fine mess

message: I've removed the following from the narrative per WP:MOS as to raise questions within the narrative is deprecated:
:Of course, among the questions posed by this entry are, if he was considered a Hambledon player in July 1785, why is Beldham not listed on a scorecard as such until August 1787, and why did he still play for Farnham, including games against the club he was a documented member of ?
The fact is that 18th century players were not tied to any one team and most played for several different teams in a single season. There is a case (Thomas Brett) of a player who was apparently a "one-club man" but he is a rare exception. As for playing against Hambledon, that is the "given man" syndrome which was frequently used to try and balance teams for purposes of wagering. And the absence of Beldham from scorecards for a couple of years probably has more to do with the absence of scorecards in that period, especially 1785. ----Jack | talk page 08:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking of "given man", I was wonder if the use of the term in Beldham's article (and others) would merit a brief explanatory footnote, as the term might puzzle a reader who hadn't encountered it before.  JH (talk page) 08:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be explained and I think it would be best to use a footnote like the one I've introduced for the statistical caveat. I'll make a note to do that when the term is used. Thanks again. ----Jack | talk page 12:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions in narrative 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Billy Beldham. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1781.html#1782
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've just had a very quick scan through the latest version. 1. When the term "given man" is used, I think it needs a brief note to explain what it means. 2. I see that John Woodcock rating Beldham very highly in his 100 greatest cricketers of all time has been omitted (unless it's been moved and I missed it). I think Woodcock's opinion carries enough weight that it's worth retaining. (But I should declare an interest, as I think it was I who put it in originally.) JH (talk page) 17:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, . I do apologise but the Woodcock piece went AWOL. I was moving things around and obviously missed a paste. It is of course highly relevant for legacy purposes. Thanks for pointing it out and I hope it's okay now. I'm looking at given men as it is a point raised in the review as one of the footnotes. I see we only have it in the project glossary but I'm sure I've seen a source somewhere that does provide an explanation. I'll keep looking. Thanks again and sorry for my clumsiness. BoJó | talk UTC 20:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of comments