Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 20

message: Someone just made this edit to change the Flag of South Africa to the one that was around in 1992. Many articles seem to be using the flag that was current at a point of time rather than a common one. I suppose it is unnecessary for us to do the same in cricket. Tintin (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a vague memory that there's a discussion about this in some of the earliest archives of this page, and we decided to use the current one because it's the most recognisable. That's certainly my preference, anyway. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Found it  here Tintin (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South African flag 

message: Is it just me, or are some of his edits walking a fine line into POV and hagiography? I think that the George Giffen article is the prime example.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't look at the other articles but the stuff that looks like POV in Giffen was added by an IP editor here. Stevens' this edit only rearranged the existing contents. The only complainable edit in the few lines that he added is the 'surely' about Walter Giffen which he changed in a subsequent edit. Tintin (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Christopherandrewstevens]] 

message: It's done!!! *whoops*, *jumps*, *runs around shouting*, *sits down tired & resumes typing* Finally after nearly three months of work the ODI Bios list is finally complete. This means that Wikipedia now provides info on every player who has ever played international cricket! Wow, I gues that's a great achievement. I would like to thank all the members of the Cricket project for their support in reaching this goal. Anyway time to celebrate with  cha-, no I don't think I have any so water will have to do! 
Cheers
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work! I myself would never have been able to complete such a task. Really good work. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done!  Our coverage of female players is much less extensive - plenty of female Test captains are redlinked - amd we need to address the sub-stubs... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is indeed great work. I am duly impressed. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completed ODI Bios of Pakistan & therefore all all ODI bios! 

message: Indian cricket team has been Promoted to Good Article and is about to be promoted to Selected Article on the India Portal. So I've put it up for Peer Review at This location. Feel free to contribute with your comments. Thanks. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Indian cricket team]] Promotion and Peer Review

message: Is it just me, or do Cricket Team of the University of Göttingen, Lansing Cricket Club, Salesian Old Boys Cricket Club seem to be just random groups of cricket players who are non-notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All look pretty non-notable to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we should nom them for deletion. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All put up for deletion.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, Hoppers crossing cricket club from yesterday.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-notable cricket clubs at [[:Category:Club cricket teams]] 

message: The opening on :Category:English cricket captains says: This is a list of the 76 cricketers who have captained England in at least one Test match. Are ODI only captains (eg. Adam Hollioake) excluded from this category? -- I@n ≡ talk 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Captains

message: I have taken a rather bold move (for my standards) and unilaterally edited this article because I get a lot of TV and radio coverage of all Australian international games, so I felt confident in changing a lot of judgement calls which I think were obvious, but subtle POV.
* That his return from injury in the 2001 Ashes was difficult due to flat pitches and a lack of luck
** Pitches in the subcontinent are much flatter and have not seam/swing, so I removed this excuse; unless we should put this excuse in the bio of every IND/PAK/SL pace bowler
* Aspersion that his poor results were due to McGrath and Warne being injured
** This was only true of 2003, and Gillespie was still playing then, and Gillespie is better than all but maybe two or three quicks at that time, so I removed that statement. I didn't think it was fair to say that Irfan Pathan gets bad results because he has to bowl with Ajit Agarkar, for instance.
* "one of the world's finest bowlers", "devastating inswinging yorker", in reference to his strike rate - "amongst the greats"
** Changed to: 1) cited his ICC ranking, "dangerous" and "incisive"
* Claim that is 159km delivery against Bangladesh is a claim to being th fastest bowler
** Removed - This is not the fastest ball of all time.
*That his slower ball, with the largest speed differential, is "one of the most impressive", and that this was supported by an arbitrary dismissal of Lara
** Rm that also, dismissing a certain batsman on a random occasion with a certain type of ball is not proof that it is a great trait
* That his speed creates and suffers bad luck because balls will get nicked through the slips more; gave a random example of bad luck
** The slips stand back further for a faster bowler. There is no evidence that he gets more nicks due to sheer speed or that he will get more dropped catches, edges piercing the slips due to this
* Spectacular batting, allrounder claims
** Cited his ICC ranking, which is in the 90s
Please review this extensive and possibly controversial changes. Thanks.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked through the history, and it seems as though User:Night Bringer added all of these in many iterations, without anybody noticing. He also lobbied at Talk:Australian cricket team to put in a section saying that Australia's recent poor form was due to anti-Australian umpiring (other way round IMHO - no I didn't put that in the article), so I think I'd better keep an eye on him. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also carved into Darren Lehmann and Brendon Julian. Please reviewm my changes.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brett Lee]] revisions 

message: Almost the first thing in the article is that Nehra is a Hindu and a Jat. Why is there such an undue prominence given to this. I think it should be removed.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing it as it has no relevance to the article. IMHO, unless it is a matter of significance or curiosity, relegion should have no place in the cricket articles. Tintin (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Unnecessary =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ashish Nehra]] 

message: BBC's Test Match Special commentator, (probably Jonathan Agnew, but I'm not quite sure on their names yet), just mentioned our article on the doosra (which I think focuses a bit too much on chucking at present) if people wanted help understanding what it is, as it "was going to be mentioned a lot during this series". (Admittedly it was on an email from the viewer, but still :)) Sam Vimes 11:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia as source - again 

message: As I proposed a month ago, I have now created the above two stub templates, and the associated stub categories, and also populated them. All 10 Test-playing nations now have their own cricketbio-stub template, which should be used in preference to the plain . The other countries don't yet have enough biographies to justify their own stub, according to the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 03:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Bangladesh-cricketbio-stub}} and {{tl|Zimbabwe-cricketbio-stub}} 

message: An anon has been cutting and pasting Cricinfo biographies - . -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cricinfo copyvio

message: There are a couple of cricket-related lists on FLC at the moment - List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries and One-day International cricket hat-tricks. Futher comments would be welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FLC]]

message: An anon User:219.74.40.72 has added a number of records to the Rahul Dravid article after the first ODI against the West Indies which although probably authentic, are IMO quite unnecessary. We can derive endless such records if we consider every match Dravid has played against every country & soon we will have a massive records section filled with meaningless records. I think only significant records (like the ones already present) should be included. Please let me know your opinion.
Thanks
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 15:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree but since they look like good-faith edits, maybe an encouraging word in his talk page would be nice :-) Tintin (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rahul Dravid]] 

message: The article contains this line : He is also the only cricketer to be selected to play for England while playing league cricket.  Is it true ? Tintin (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cricinfo says so... They could be wrong, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sydney Barnes]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian cricket tour of South Africa 2006 -- I@n ≡ talk 09:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article for deletion

message: Has anybody looked at the edits by this IP? I have removed his edits to Shoaib Malik, and then looked at the edits to Jonty Rhodes and Boeta Dippenaar, and I am not sure whether they are joke edits or simply badly constructed. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His trivia edits look well-meaning but unencyclopaedic. Although this and this don't bade well. Will need to watch. -- I@n ≡ talk 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits by  24.87.72.251 

message: Can someone take a look at Lord Frederick Beauclerk - it reads like a hatchet job right now. I came across it while on random article patrol. Cheers. Megapixie 03:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've simply reduced it to a stub for it to be developed objectively with a more accurate representation of the sources.  I agree Beauclerk was an unsavoury character but we must be objective.  --Jack 11:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lord Frederick Beauclerk]] 

message: User:Nichalp has commented that this infobox looks jaded and dull. Is there anyone with more knowledge about tables and templates that can make it look a little better? Thanks. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 03:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really bad. User:Saravask might help out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox Test team]] 

message: Wikipedia:Persondata is special metadata which can be added to biographical articles.  With about 4500 cricketer and related people biographical articles now setup in Wikipedia, we are in a wonderful position to leverage off that and so I wonder whether we should embark on a side project to embed persondata tags into all of our biographies.  I can see lots of possibilities once this has been done, but the task would be immense.  I've added a persondata block into Donald Bradman so you can see what I'm talking about.
I'm interested what others think and if supportive, is there a way to (at least partially) automate the task? -- I@n ≡ talk 14:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd already started doing this to a tiny minority of English cricketers (Bobby Abel to William Attewell), using AWB to help automate the task, but I got distracted by something else and didn't continue. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 14:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Nick. I'm particularly interested in whether data scraping would be feasable to construct the block. -- I@n ≡ talk 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can start doing it for the Indian cricketers. I just got authorized to use AWB, so the task will be much easier. Should I start with the important players first or just the whole category? Thanks. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder if this is a task that could feasibly be given to CricketBot? Stephen? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think CricketBot could, but Stephen would have to to a hell of a lot of work to get the bot to recognize the cricketers' details, given that the details are not entirely uniform for all the players. BTW I was just about to start & was wondering that if a player doesn't have a nickname & is alive should the Date of death & Nickname fields be left empty or removed? Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently yes - leave them there, but blank. Wikipedia talk:Persondata discusses some of the formatting rules. -- I@n ≡ talk 03:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Appropriate biographical data could perhaps be slurped from Cricinfo (where it's presented in a standard format) rather than the Wikipedia articles. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persondata

message: I noticed that the flags used in cricketer's bios are all .png. Can we use cricketbot to make the switch to the superior .svg format? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG flags 

message: A new contributor who is, I think, well-intentioned has made some strange edits to Rohan Kanhai. I reverted similar edits from an anonymous IP-addressed editor at the weekend, but there are evidently things that this new editor wants to say, and though they aren't being said very clearly there may be some value in some of them. I'm loath to go back in and revert again: perhaps someone else could take a look? Johnlp 20:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I've tried, but I don't know whether my edits were what you were after. :) Sam Vimes 20:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rohan Kanhai]] edits 

message: Hi, I've just created :Category:Cricketer-politicians as it seems to have some potential. Someone may want to populate relevant articles with the cat after looking at the description on the cat page and cat_talk page. --Gurubrahma 05:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cat 

message: I noticed this is on the project list. I've done quite a bit of work on this recently, dropping great chunks of repetition, some POV, getting things into a sensible order etc. I'll continue working on it... and welcome contributions from others! Dweller 08:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Zimbabwean cricket team]] 

message: How easy is it to create one of these? Would be nice for the WikiProject participants to have their very own. Dweller 11:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  duh. found it. Dweller 11:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I'd made one of my own because I couldn't find any: Nobleeagle  (Talk) 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: user box

message: Just saw this on cricinfo:
110.2  	Mohammed to Dravid, OUT, gone! (caught) 
110.3 	Mohammed to Jaffer, 1 run
Does anyone know why Jaffer, after Dravid was out caught, took the strike instead of the incoming batsman?
Thanks - and please let me know if I should ask this elsewhere. Thank you. --Dbk331 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the batsmen exchanged places by taking runs while the ball was in the air, thus allowing Jaffer to be on strike. Unlike when a boundary is hit, the batsman does not return to his original spot after a dismissal. And you are in the right place (at least, nobody here is criminally offended by the sight of a cricketing question) Sam Vimes 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about cricket 

message: I have added various images onto Wikipedia over the last few months, mainly from the Benefit Matches we host at Upminster Cricket Club, the photos are on our website  and I have used those for Wikipedia. The problem is one by one these are being flagged for deletion as I have used the original photographers name not mine. They have happily donated the photos for my website why can't they donate to Wikipedia? First case in point is :Image:Acook.JPG   kroome111 12:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't help with the irritating copyright problem, but that photo isn't the showing most elegant of defensive shots by England's "star of the future"! Dweller 12:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket Images 

message: I feel that recent addition of certain records to this article is quite unnecessary. First is the re-addition of the Minor Records section which I think should be removed (see WT:CRIC#Rahul_Dravid above) as it only contains Dravid's records against the West Indies. It also contained a statement "Every cricketer in his life accumulates a host of minor records to his name, as an encyclopedia Wikipedia has a list of them" which I removed as a WP:ASR violation. Also the record referring to Dravid's success under Ganguly, although interesting, seems a bit out of place. I would appreciate if some of our "regulars" can check it out. Thanks. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rahul Dravid]] again 

message: Not a regular participant in this project, I have nevertheless created a list of first-class cricket records at List of first-class cricket records (by analogy with List of Test cricket records).  I think a cricket encyclopedia definitely ought to contain such a list.  I'd welcome feedback: I recognise there's plenty that could be added (links to match scores at cricketarchive.com, for instance).  My rationale for the career lists was to set the qualification so that it included roughly the top 15 in each category runs, wickets, w/k dismissals.  Given the current set-up of the game it does not appear to me that these career records will ever need modifying again after Hick retires (which, by the way, I hope won't be 2010 at the earliest :-).  --RobertG ♬ talk 16:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggested additions :
*About the Wisden/ACS mismatch : Most career runs for Hobbs and Grace follow the Wisden figures while almost everything else use the ACS stats. It could be one or the other but only one standard should be followed throughout the article, and there should be a comment somewhere explaining the issue.
*Most runs in a season may include a comment that this is only for the English season and these are unlikely to be bettered because of the reduction in the number of matches since 1969; optionally the best since then; and if there is enough space left, may also include the non-English figures. Tintin (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First-class records 

message: In case others are interested, Sam Vimes has confirmed that he would accept a WP:RFA nomination - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sam Vimes RFA

message: ...are a bit confused.
*:Category:First Class cricket teams looks to be incorrectly captitalised
*We have :Category:Former first-class cricket clubs and :Category:Pakistani first-class cricket teams with a hyphen and the rest without.
I think we should lose the capital letter, and suspect that we ought to have a hyphen, but could live without it.  And then there is "teams" versus "clubs".
Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably sounded very boring to everyone ;) Anyway, for the record, I agree with you - and so does a Cricinfo search . I also think everything should be "teams" because the Pakistani teams clearly aren't clubs in the traditional sense, and I don't think the Indian are, either (since they represent the local governing association, rather similar to a national team). Sam Vimes 11:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, very boring, compared to the 2006 FIFA World Cup anyway :) Do we need some sort of CFD? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The parent category First Class cricket teams wouldn't need a CFD, that goes under Capitalisation fixes in the Speedy renaming criteria. Think it might be needed for teams v. clubs, tho. (and there's a whole hour before Portugal v. Mexico to do it in!) Sam Vimes 13:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There. :Category:First-class cricket teams created, for the time being anyway. Sam Vimes 13:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First class cricket team categories...

message: This really should be a featured list, like List of Test cricket grounds by date.  Its failings are:
*a few redlinks (mostly in Pakistan and Sri Lanka)
*missing names for "ends" at a number of grounds (many in Pakistan, and some that are very historic and difficult to find - like Bramall Lane or Brisbane Exhibition Ground)
Please help! (I have deliberately left off the number of Tests at each ground, by the way, to avoid having to update incessantly.) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Test cricket grounds]]

message: Just noticed on the SIGNPOST that this is a featured picture. I didn't know about it previuosly, but I feel that there are a couple of errors at least. Long leg is shown as being finer than fine lege, which I thought was supposed to be the other way around. Also the "backward short leg" is not close in, as it is supposed to be. It is shown close to the edge of the ODI fielding restriction circle.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the Long Leg error is quite glaring. A featured pic should be completely accurate. Any graphic designers in the house? --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm there. (PS: the first draft was made by me (:Image:Cricket fielding positions.svg). Actually the "straight" errors are in because the newer version used these terms as modifiers, rather than actual positions. BTW anyone can edit the image, just download Inkscape to edit the image. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Cricket_fielding_positions2.svg]] is a featured picture 

message: I notice User:BlackJack has removed several articles from this category:
*Bombay Quadrangular
*Sydney Riot of 1879
*The Ashes
*Ball of the Century
*Underarm bowling
They are all articles about historical events in cricket, so I don't see why they should be removed. Comments? -dmmaus 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, not a problem. I have no objection at all, and think this is a good idea. I just didn't notice the announcement of your intentions and so was confused. (The cricket organisation discussions are spread over a few pages, I notice...) -dmmaus 09:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of cricket category

message: This has become something like Topsy that has "just growed".
It has been evident to me for some time that there is no structure to the categories;  that there are stray articles all over the place; that categories that were designed for generic items and as "holding categories" for relevant sub-categories are simply being used as additional bases for specific articles; and that what we have here is another fine mess.
What makes it worse is that I have been trying to get other cricket people interested in using WP for cricket reference and their feedback has been critical to say the least.
We MUST have a top-down structure to categories and we must stop piling things ad hoc into useless lists.  If we have a structured categorisation, the lists will be redundant (they are anyway) and readers will easily be able to navigate.
I have identified 28 categories under Cricket and there should only be 10!  As a rule of thumb, I would say that the number of sub-cats in one category should be a cricket team (plus perhaps an umpire) and that an XI (or a dozen) is the limit.
Here are my proposed level 2 categories under the level 1 Cricket "root":
* Cricket by country (1) – each country has own cat at level 3 (status quo except that level 3 is for holding cats only)
* Cricket culture (2) – one-off to capture the miscellany, the peripherals, the trivials, the wider picture, etc.
* Forms of cricket (3) – first-class, Test, local clubs, under-19, etc. – histories of each to be in sub-cats
* Cricket images (4) – repository to be stored directly under root for reference purpose
* Cricket (in the) media (5) – anything re books, broadcasting, journalism, film, computers, etc.  Currently renaming this category.
* Cricket organisation and governance (6) – admin, scoring, venues, comps, equipment, awards, Laws, records, stats, etc.
* Cricket people (7) – players, umpires, writers, administrators, etc – every article to be re an individual 
* Cricket skills (8) – batting, bowling, fielding, keeping, captaincy, umpiring – onfield activities only
* Cricket stubs (9) – repository to be stored directly under root for reference purpose
* Cricket terminology (10) – repository to be stored directly under root for reference purpose
Apart from the two in bold, all the above are existing categories.  Apart from the generic article Cricket, the portal and the WikiProject, there should be no articles or pages held under the root category.  
Level 3 should be the main sub-categories.  For example, under skills at level 2 the level 3 cats would be batting, bowling, umpiring, etc. as above.  Generally, there should be no pages at level 2 except for the standalone categories like culture, images and stubs.  A couple of the level 2 cats like country and people should not have pages on level 3 either as level 3 is where they split up into countries and occupations respectively.
The worst categories of all are history, teams and Tests which frankly need completely restructuring or demolishing.  They are a disgrace and I am especially embarrassed by history as I started it and put most of the original effort into it.  History is carrying surplus articles that should be reassigned or else have sufficient specific categories already and should not be in a generic category like history.  History had eight sub-cats and six of them were cross-cats that were already adequately located elsewhere, especially under the country or competition headings.  The other two history cats were small specific items that should both be elsewhere: Olympics under competitions and Years under first-class cricket.
I have already started sorting out much of this mess but I will not change the root category's sub-cats until members have had chance to read this and respond to it.  Pending any feedback, I will change the root cat on Sat 1 July. --Jack 05:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first sentence is pretty much spot on - it's what happens in a wiki. Anyway, I think the history of cricket category is still useful - it's not immediately obvious where to go from the top level in your organisation if you want information on how the game evolved in the 19th century, say.  (Yes, it may be obvious when you're familiar with the categories, but not everyone have designed the system.) I think it's a bit of a large step to just wipe it out altogether. Sam Vimes 08:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sam re history but otherwise I think Jack is on the right track.  --GeorgeWilliams 17:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for reference, here is a useful tool that shows a tree view of the Cricket category and all it's subcategories (and the articles within them). – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 09:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I really appreciate someone taking the time to look at this, and I think your suggestions have a lot of merit.  One point, though: categories do not have to form a tree hierarchy.  Adding a category is essentially free, so why shouldn't there be cross-cats?  Perhaps it would help if you could give an example of the problem.  I'd also be interested in details of the critical feedback you have received - what else don't your cricket contacts like about WP? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For information.  The following contributions have been copied to here from the cricket category talk page so that the whole discussion is in one place.  I have left a link on the cricket page to here and another link has been placed in the portal.  --Jack 04:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For information.  This ends the contributions originally made on the cricket category talk page.--Jack 04:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket Categories 

message: I really cannot see the point of maintaining huge and difficult to use lists like List of cricket topics and List of cricketers.  There are probably hundreds of articles not in them and who can be bothered to look there when it's so much easier (and reliable) to use the search facility or the cricket categories anyway?
Pending any feedback, I'm going to propose both of those lists for deletion on Sat 1 July. --Jack 11:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created List of cricket topics to have some way, any way, to organise the growing number of articles, since at the time there wasn't any better way to do it. Literally the next day the category system came online, and I immediately realised that the list page was then redundant. I'd be happy to see it go. -dmmaus 23:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't List of cricketers updated automatically too?  What is the problem? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Ian said above, the real purpose of creating that page was to provide an easy way to monitor the changes made to all cricketer pages using the Recent changes list, especially since it is not always possible to keep track of the newly created pages. If such a page is not appopriate in the main space, it may be moved under WP:Cric, but it should not be deleted. Same goes for List_of_cricket_topics, but if is not an automatically generated page, it won't be of much use. Tintin (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to confuse everyone. Its List of cricketers and not List of cricket topics that's updated automatically. -- I@n ≡ talk 11:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, they should be a subpage of WP:Cricket, not in the main space. They're useful for editors to do Related Changes, but they're not useful to the ordinary reader of the encyclopaedia. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge lists for deletion? 

message: Please comment on the cricket categories included in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 24 Tintin (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories for deletion 

message: The Cricket WikiProject now has scored a century with 100 participants. A fine innings... Nobleeagle  (Talk) 05:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Century! 

message: I've nominated :category:cricket dismissals for delete as it contains only four articles that are all in its own parent :category:cricket terminology.  This is pointless duplication especially as the parent cat is the one being developed (it has over 100 articles).  --GeorgeWilliams 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_28#June_28 

message: One for delete.  It has been under context request for ages and clearly no one can be bothered to develop it.  Pointless list idea.  --GeorgeWilliams 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/England_tests 

message: This has been targeted by :user:BlackJack for review and cleanup, mainly because of stray articles so I've made an attempt to do it.  I've created a few new sub-categories such as history, grounds and competitions and moved the articles into it, leaving only three generic articles in the main category plus the one above that I've nominated for deletion.  See what you think.  --GeorgeWilliams 21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me, except for one subcategory: I'm not too keen on the :Category:Famous Tests, though, mainly because it involves a POV decision I don't think we should go near - what is famous? We'd have to find sources for every single one, and that's just tedious for a category that's not really that necessary anyway. Sam Vimes 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sam re the title of "Famous Tests" (definitely POV and an open invite to all sorts of recent matches) but I can see that the intention was to have a category for articles about individual Tests or series given that we have very few at present: a sort of "holding category" pending a bigger spread of articles.  I would change the name but keep the category (can't think of a name though!).  Otherwise George has done a great job here and the sub-cats for Test grounds and competitions are fine.  I just have one other little point which is that Boxing Day Test isn't really generic and should be found a category too: something like "Test cricket terminology", perhaps?  --213.122.0.188 04:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:category:Test cricket]] 

message: See this page and comment.  I've requested further discussion given the project's topic above.  --Jack 07:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cricketers]] 

message: I thought we'd had this debate before, but Jack has amended the Cricket Article Style Guide on WP:Cricket to say that seasons that cross years should now be referred to as 2005-2006, rather than 2005-06. I don't agree with this, but what do others think? Johnlp 08:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We debated this pretty thoroughly at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/archive14#Season_styles_.28again.29. Sam Vimes 08:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we did and the consensus was 2005-06.  I just had a look at WP:MOS which is still silent on this.  Therefore it's up to us to establish our own style.  If the cricket style guide needs to be changed, please discuss it here before arbitrarily changing.  I've reverted the project page accordingly. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season dates 

message: With the recent spate of cricket related AfD nominations and the need to bring them to participants attention, I wonder what project members think of opening a page in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting for cricket.  Basically, AfD and CfD pages are transcluded to a separate page which you can then add to your watch list. A small notice is also placed in the AfD page indicating that the nomination has been included in associated deletion sorting page.  See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia for an example of how it works.  It may be that the volume is too low to warrant it and an alternative could be to just have an section in the WP:CRIC project page or this talk page with same.  I'm interested in others thoughts. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a great idea as many cricket-related AFD's come and go without the knowledge of many participants here, who may not be AFD regulars, can provide an expert's view to the discussions. The volume here might be low but are quite important like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Leipus. I have taken the initiative & created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket (Shortcut WP:DSC) and would like to request all the participants (& non-participants too) to list any cricket-related AFD or prod here. We can also have its transclusion or create a Cricket Noticeboard  of sorts which could direct project members to the deletion sorting page. I'd appreciate any opinions or comments & feedback and would request everyone again to populate the lists. Thanks --Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 10:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work Srikeit.  Can everyone now add Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket to their watchlist. -- I@n ≡ talk 11:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion sorting

message: In keeping with consensus in the recent categories discussion above, I've made changes to the history structure to relocate stray articles to specific categories and to relate the history sub-categories to the geographic ones.
For example, 1726 English cricket season is in :category:English cricket in the 18th Century which is a specific sub-category of the sub-generic :category:History of English cricket.  That category is a child of two parents, one historic and one geographical — :category:History of cricket and :category:Cricket in England respectively.  
You will note that :category:History of cricket is a main category of the root :category:Cricket itself and that it also contains :category:History of Australian cricket and :category:History of Test cricket.
:category:Cricket in England is part of :category:Cricket by country and this includes :category:Cricket in Australia which follows a similar pattern in that it leads to :category:History of Australian cricket which is being developed as per its English counterpart.  At present it has one sub-cat :category:Australian cricket in the Golden Age and this has some season stubs and a seasonal template as per the equivalent English category.
Obviously, the intention is to develop the other countries using the same structure.
I hope you can follow the above but it's best to navigate the hyperlinks and you'll see what's going on.  Can anyone make any additional suggestions?  --Jack 10:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of cricket sub-categories