Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 2

message: I've been working on this article and would like to work it up to featured article status. I'd be grateful for any comments/improvements anyone has. In particular, if there are any Aussies out there who know something about the subject, it would be great to add some more stuff from an Aussie perspective. Many thanks in advance, jguk 16:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with any 19th century Test matches, but I might be able to get my hands on a book about the first 100 years of Australian cricket and have a look through it if it's any help. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I have a book on every England Test player, if it helps.  Smoddy | ειπετε 17:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be great if you could add something. I've just had Cricket's Colosseum - 125 Years of Test Cricket at the MCG by Ken Piesse delivered - which will help me add something on the games at the MCG, jguk 18:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Test matches in the 19th century]]

message: I have some matter on the lime tree that was "killed". Does anyone have an idea on what to name the article? 
::St Lawrence Cricket Ground Lime Tree
::Cricket grounds in most parts of the world are devoid of any trees or shrubs with the exception of the two trees. The lime tree in St Lawrence Cricket Ground, home of the Kent County Cricket Club, England and another in the Pietermaritzburg cricket ground in South Africa till recently were the only two trees within boundary limits. Sadly, on January 12, 2005, high winds in England caused the 158 year-old tree to topple and snap.
::Shots blocked by the tree were counted as a  four. Only three cricketers have cleared the 90 foot tree to score a six.  Middlesex's Jim Smith (1939) and  West Indians Learie Constantine (1928) and Carl Hooper (1992).
Please add it in a relavent page. I am currently toooooo busy to think of an apt page title. Nichalp 18:21, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
: I think it should probably be in the article about the ground, rather than a separate article about the tree. Stephen Turner 18:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Kent County Cricket Club is itself just a stub, and there is no article on the Canterbury ground, I've added it to Kent County Cricket Club, jguk 19:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have said: I've moved it out to St Lawrence Ground. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: There are four batsmen who have hit the ball over tree according to Frank Keating. 
"Every media outlet trotted out as undisputed certainty that only three batsmen had ever cleared the tree with a single blow - Learie Constantine first in 1929, big Jim Smith of Middlesex 10 years later and Kent's Carl Hooper in 1992. Not so.
This myth of three celebs must at once be scotched lest history accept it as fact. First to clear the fabled lime, four years before Constantine, was long-forgotten, breezily bullish Sussex amateur Colonel A C "Jacko" Watson, who in 1925 hit "Tich" Freeman not only clean over the tree but over the president's tent and the wide car park as well - and the lost ball was not found till the following spring, under bushes in a garden on the corner where Nackington Road meets the Old Dover Road. "
Source : http://sport.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,10260,1390182,00.html
I suppose Keating is one of the finest cricket writers around (or left). Can we consider this as authentic ? Tintin1107 22:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lime Tree 

message: I was thinking of putting the historic cricketer template on Graeme Pollock but am not sure which South African flag to use (see Flag of South Africa). It just seems odd to use a flag for some players that they did not play under (and in some instances would never have seen), though I must say, I wouldn't recognise the red ensign used between 1910 and 1928, and wouldn't relish deciding what to use for cricketers before 1910. (Of course, this also applies to 19th century Australians.) jguk 21:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, for consistency's sake, we should use the modern version for every player.  How would many people recognise an old South African flag?  It may seem a little odd, but it does make the most sense if we are trying to achieve some kind of simplicity to implement.  I don't fancy doing the coding to put in another flag.  Just stick the current one in.  If people don't know, then they won't be bothered.  If they do know, I can't see them being offended.  Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 21:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I second what Smoddy said. Squash 02:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: And besides, the current South African flag was not adopted until April 1994, well after the country's readmission, so many players will have played under both the current and previous flags. I agree that it's best simply to use the current flag. Loganberry 15:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Which South African flag should we use?

message: I've just launched this article - would be grateful for suggested improvements.
Just a slight diversion for me: I'll be off to improve my Test cricket in the 19th century articles now:) jguk 23:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[International cricket in South Africa (1971 to 1981)]]

message: I've nominated Test matches in the 19th century (to 1883) as a featured article candidate on WP:FAC. Any comments/support would be welcome, jguk 21:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article candidate

message: Hello.  I've posted a new article Test cricket families if anyone's interested or got anything to add. - Ianbrown 08:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *now expanded to List of Test or One-day International cricket families - Ianbrown 01:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test cricket families 

message: Two new articles added for you Aussies out there:  Pura Cup and ING Cup. - Ianbrown 12:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pura Cup/ING Cup 

message: Hi, I noticed that you've all done an excellent categorising cricketers, and cricket in general! A very coherent and logical scheme that is a pleasure to browse through. I did wonder if :Category:Cricketers by team will eventually have to be subdivided so that English, Australian etc teams are in separate subcategories (once all the Ranji Trophy teams get added it will be a very full category!) but I really have a query about categorising individual cricketers by era, so that contemporary cricketers would appear in the same category - that seems to be an alternative and sensible way of sorting them. "By decade" seems to be the best way to handle it - only a bare handful of cricketers would straddle three decades at international level. Since you seem to be "in charge" of cricketers generally I thought I would make the proposition here. Which format of these do you think would be best?
# "International cricketers 1990-99" (this sort of date format is used e.g. by Wikiproject:Aircraft)
# "1990s international cricketers" (I prefer this date format - shorter & more natural, though 1900-09 and 2000-09 look a bit strange. Nevertheless, look at 1900s on WP and you get the decade not the century)
# "Test cricketers 1990-99" & "ODI cricketers 1990-99"
# "1990s Test cricketers" & "1990s ODI cricketers"
Formats 3 and 4 would fit better into your (logical) categorisation split between Test and ODI cricketers, but since so many cricketers would be in both, for two different decades, it runs the risk of "overcategorisation". Formats 1 and 2 wouldn't result in the same amount overcategorisation, but don't easily fit into the Test/ODI cricketer split (and it does seem relevant - IMO it would be nice to have at least one category in which both Nasser Hussain and Steve Waugh appeared as contemporaries, but Tim de Leede and Bas Zuiderent didn't join them! With the ICC switching to the new system for widening recognition of ODI status, under which if the England/Namibia tour matches of this Winter were played next Winter they would be full ODIs, recognising a Test/ODI split seems to be a good idea).
I'm quite happy to do all the manual categorisation myself but I just wondered if anybody here thought that such a scheme would be useful and in what way you would prefer me to do it. If anybody has any thoughts on 1-4 (or indeed any other alternatives), then please leave some replies here. Some feedback would be appreciated!
Oh, and one more idea - what about :Category:Cricket World Cup winners or similar for CWC-winning cricketers? I know there are a large number of awards and champions in cricket, but the CWC does stand out as one especially worth including (more so than, say, ICC Champions' Trophy winners) even if you are a die-hard member of the "ODI cricket isn't proper cricket" brigade. VivaEmilyDavies 21:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricketer categorisation 

message: I've started to put together the rudiments of a cricket WikiPortal on Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. However, I'd like it to be a WikiPortal with a difference. The other ones have the editor in mind - I'd prefer to have the reader in mind, so that, once developed, the WikiPortal will be moved to "Cricket". Any comments/suggested improvements to the WikiPortal? jguk 20:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiPortal

message: I personally feel that the wikipedia coverage of cricket is full enough to create a wikireader.  This needn't be something to be set in stone, but rather something to be continually updated.  I am creating a list of articles in an approximate order that they might go in at User:Smoddy/Cricket WikiReader.  I would appreciate comments or contributions.  Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cricket wikireader

message: This is a suggestion that we have a collaboration of the fortnight. The idea derived from Smoddy's WikiReader list, which shows a number of gaps in our cricket coverage which really ought to be filled. In particular, our write-ups of the national teams are somewhat indifferent at present (although the West Indian one is probably closest to FA status.
I've opened up a page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Collaboration of the fortnight to discuss possible collaborations. Maybe discuss what we want to do for now, with the first one coming in next week (Sunday 22 May). Kind regards, jguk 12:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a good idea. I'm not "officially" nominating anything there since I can't commit to being available to help at a specific time, but I'll say here that personally I like the idea of The Ashes being chosen, since unlike the other nominees (except perhaps the Tsunami Appeal one), time is rather of the essence with that one. Loganberry 23:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the fortnight 

message: What should be done with the various nationality fields in the case of those such as Kepler Wessels who played for more than one country? And, even more so, what about players who changed their actual nationality - for example, did some India/Pakistan players do that after partition? Should the flag displayed be their birth nationality, their final nationality, the flag they played most under, or what? Loganberry 11:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the archive of this talk page for the previous occasion on which this was discussed. There wasn't any real consensus achieved: as far as I am aware, most participants are giving players flags based on the team they played most for. --Ngb 12:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The view above was that it should be the country with which a player is most closely associated. I think in Wessels case, he is clearly South African. However, I'm sure there are other players where the distinction is not so obvious. Kind regards, jguk 12:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was Smoddy's view; Nichalp and Squash were the only other people to express opinions, and they both had different suggestions. To me it seems difficult to come up with one 'defined' formula for doing it: 'the country with which a player is most closely associated' is a subjective thing, so it seems clear these things need to be decided on an individual basis rather than by some one size fits all fiat. Wessels is clearly South African. :) --Ngb 16:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which was my point.  Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Wessels probably wasn't a particularly good example. One who might be, though - and someone who at the time of writing doesn't have a page at all, is John Traicos, who played three Tests for SA before their isolation, and four for Zimbabwe after they gained international status. Cricinfo list him as "Zimbabwe/South Africa", so I'd be inclined to mark him down as Zimbabwean, especially as he played for Zim in the ICC Trophy, but it's a closer-run thing in his case. (On top of all that, he was born in Egypt and now lives in Australia!) Loganberry 00:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also go with Zimbabwean for Traicos. --Ngb 12:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox question 

message: I've made a template similar to that of the 2005 English cricket season template, only for international tours this season. The season classification is from cricinfo. Thought it might be useful if we want to expand the coverage on other tours as well as the England competitions. Edit: I see now that the naming is a bit stupid - maybe some admin could rename it to "international cricket tours of 2005" instead of just international tours? Sam Vimes 09:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved it as requested, but you could have moved it yourself:  there should be a "Move this page" link somewhere (exactly where it is will depend on which skin you are using).  This might not work if the target already exists and is not simply a redirect to the page being moved with no history - in which case you would need to get an admin involved via Wikipedia:Requested moves - but in this case, all was fine. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, didn't know about that (am still a bit of a n00b at wiki-editing). Will use it in future. Sam Vimes 10:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you need to be around for a few days for the "move" function to be unlocked (and unregistered editors can't do it at all).  See, er, Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page, I think, for more info. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: International Template

message: I was a little startled when editing The Ashes to discover that there is an article about results in cricket located at plain Result. As someone says on that article's Talk page (and I agree), it's hardly the first place someone specifically interested in cricket would look. I'm not sure whether there's a need for a specific Results in cricket page or the like, but if so it should certainly go in a less vaguely-titled article. Loganberry 02:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page to The result in cricket. --Ngb 10:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Result"