Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

Twenty20 in Infoboxes

The Twenty20 WC is coming up and with more and more Twenty20 Internationals being played do we need to consider adding player's stats into their infoboxes? Interestinly Cricinfo record these stats but Cricketarchive does not on their player pages. Crickettragic 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say not in the main one as it would make it too long/wide. Maybe there will be calls for it to be added in subsequent boxes later in an article; as it stands until the world cup, there haven't been main internationals to bother with, only a handful per side. Only my view anyway...–MDCollins (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cricket Archive does record them. See here.

Yeah sorry about that, appears CricketArchive does show them. I must have looked at a player's page that hasn't yet played Twenty20 Int cricket.Crickettragic 00:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't add twenty twenty stats yet. first class performances are far more important and the test players don't even have them for the most part. Nick mallory 10:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. IMHO Twenty20 is still very much a junior off-shoot of the sport and has nothing like the prestige of Test or ODI cricket. I'm curious to know how Rugby Union Wikipedians treat international 7s players, which may be a fair comparison (bearing in mind that there's no equivalent of ODIs) --Dweller 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Irvine Romaine

Both Cricinfo and Cricket Archive are now refering to the Bermudian as Irving. Does anyone object to me moving the page? Crickettragic 13:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If the only sources used call him by one name we should go by that, really. Go for it. AllynJ 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright I'll go ahead and do it Crickettragic 03:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New Infobox summary

Summary of above... An infobox has been developed by User:Joe p15 with help from User:AllynJ and User:Mdcollins1984 to replace the variety of player infoboxes currently available and to include basic personal information. Discussion is most welcome, but the above thread is too confusing. In particular, whether you approve and would like to see it developed, but specifically thoughts on

The national flag (if an international) and its prominence
Whether club logos/team flags can/should be included bearing in mind fair-use critiria
The use of the 'role' function, and the ambiguity surrounding all-rounders

Comparisons can be viewed here. Any other thoughts/views most welcome. –MDCollins (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Should all 4 sets of stats be present (Test/ODI/FC/ListA) at once, or just Test/ODI or FC/ListA? Can we integrate Template:Infobox Old Cricketer? and have a one-template-for-all-arrangement?

I think it's an improvement. You've slimmed it a little, without losing any crucial data, unless I missed something. --Dweller 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

An (almost complete) version of the 4 column stats is viewable here. –MDCollins (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You asked for views. I think this four-column version is very good. It's irritated me for a while that we have FC and List A stats for lesser players but not for the real stars of the game. But how would we handle updating records for current players after, say, a round of County Championship matches when there might be 50 or 60 or more records to be updated? And how would four columns work for older cricketers who played only one or two versions of the game? On flags: I like the discreet flag at the top, but don't think the flags next to team names for first and last Tests (for example) add anything except clutter. On sources: if we're going to redo many of the past infoboxes, perhaps we should standardise on CricketArchive as the source, rather than cricinfo, for all as they are updated. Johnlp 18:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The four columns look very wide to me. Would it be possible to have the international/domestic stats in tabs with one showing at once, or is that too complex? As for the updating, I doubt there'd be significantly more work to do than with the current infoboxes. It's probably possible to use a bot to gather the Cricket Archive/Cricinfo data and update the articles, though it might be against their terms of service. --Cherry blossom tree 18:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

replies - re:width - it is no wider than a standard infobox. Were you (Cherry) looking at the template page or a demonstration? When the template is actually transcluded it looks normal.

re Johnlp, I guess the updating is up to whoever can spare the time. May I suggest that it doesn't matter on a match by match basis, but maybe once a month everybody picks a handful of players and updates them? Currently the stats for the Test teams get partially updated by anons mid-innings, but still takes somebody to correct them all of the time. I agree about the small flags, the one in the corner may be possible but we can't get it to work atm! As for source, the archive is fine with me. I'm still working on customisable columns for different combinations. –MDCollins (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Big news - I'm getting close to a fully customisable stats section. this sandbox, which can be tested here, now allows any combination of the four columns (Test, ODI, FC, List A) to be displayed, using one function. If anyone wants to test it, the field "stats" is filled by the letters TOFL (or which every columns required, but they must be in that order e.g. TFL or OFL or FL or TL or F or L...).

I can't display the coloured headings at the moment or set the widths, can anyone understand how? Perhaps with a fixed width infobox, they will expand to fit, but may look uneven.

Think that's enough for tonight. –MDCollins (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Integrated 'all stats' columns

Hi, With this infobox, you can now select any combination of stats columns depending on the codes of cricket played. Can we get some more views on it, as it is close to superceding all player infoboxes currently in use. See it in use: User:Joe_p15/Sandbox2 –MDCollins (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How about adding options to include Twenty20 domestic/international matches and ICC Trophy matches for those players who have played those forms? Great work so far by the way! Andrew nixon 11:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think 3 more columns Int T20, Dom T20, and world xi type matches will make it far to wide. Plus the coding will take hours, because you need to set the table up for every combination, but I'm prepared to wait and see what others think too.–MDCollins (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the width would be too much and I don't think that form of the game has enough history as yet to merit inclusion Joe p15 11:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

World XI matches would be included in the international stats anyway, I was talking about ICC Trophy matches. You could limit it to just four columns, giving (if my maths is correct) 15 combinations to include. It just makes it a catch all box that should eliminate the need for any other box. Another possibility is to enable the Test and ODI (and T20I) links to be changed to women's internationals if required. Andrew nixon 12:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you were to include the extra 3 columns it would mean 7 columns in all, meaning a total of possibly 40+ combinations I think!

Perhaps you might want to read my last comment a little closer - where I say limit it to four columns, ie. a maximum of four from seven choices. Andrew nixon 12:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, sorry, I was referring to the code that would have to go behind such an option Joe p15 12:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, it would be useful. My 15 combinations is wrong though, it's actually a lot more! It would be useful for me, as I write a lot of articles on non-test players where this would be very useful. To keep it down, how about a fifth choice to choose from (keeping within four columns) with an free choice of heading? Andrew nixon 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it could be done, given a week! A 'free' couple of columns is possible, or we would go the whole hog. I think 4 columns is about the limit though. Or, having 4 'free' columns with editable headers might be easier. Downside of that is it is harder to input the stats as {{{matches1}}}, {{{bat avg1}}} is slightly more difficult than {{{tests}}}, {{{test bat avg}}}. Or maybe it isn't...Certainly adding female capabilities isn't much of a problem. Note that User:Nick mallory and User:Dweller are against T20 at the moment (see below).–MDCollins (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that four free columns could be easier. I use Template: Cricketer Infobox which has customisable headings, and it's really easy to use. It might even make the coding easier, as you'd have only four possible templates (one with four columns, one with three, one with two and one with one) as opposed to the more than that (I haven't counted!) you have currently. I think if Twenty20 is an optional column, Nick and Dweller might be less opposed to it. At least I hope they are! Andrew nixon 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. The alignment of the column headings with the data could ideally be improved, though. Seee Charles Lyttelton for an example of what I mean, where the data in the FC column is offset from the heading by quite a bit. JH (talk page) 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Right - I'm going to have another look at these columns - maximum of four, but that will allow other codes to be used if necessary (although I still think the big 4 should take precedence, but others can be used to make up the columns). –MDCollins (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How about customisable headings? My guess is that would save a lot of coding, because (as mentioned above) there'd only be four possible templates. Andrew nixon 11:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Might have to be. Have a function for that that works, but I'm trying to use a #switch command to a) solve JH's alignment problem and b) fix the width of the boxes and, for example, expand 2 columns to fill the four available etc. Think I might implement your suggestion until I can work anything better. –MDCollins (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

John Edrich

I've been adding to this stub and trying to improve it for about 2/3 weeks now, so I would appreciate it if someone could either review it for me and give me some points on what to improve and/or assist me in improving it further. Thanks Bizzmag 12:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As a great sdmirer of John Edrich myself, I'll see what I can do. JH (talk page) 16:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction is that the article is now much more than a stub, so the first thing I'll do is "destub" it. JH (talk page) 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had an initial run through it, copyediting and expanding it in a few places. I've tried to tone down some of the rather POV language (terms like "brilliant" aren't supposed to be used unless you've some hard evidence to justify them). Though his 310* against NZ was his biggest innings, in view of the weakness of their attack I don't think he would regard it as his best, but would regard some of his efforts against Australia more highly. Some areas still need further expansion. The coverage of his Test career rather tails off after 1965, and there's not all that much on his county career (eg being a member of the side that won the Championship in 1971). Also his successful opening partnerships with Boycott for England and with Micky Stewart and then Mike Edwards for Surrey should be mentioned. JH (talk page) 18:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I've tried as hard as i can to be as factual and relevant as possible, but Edrich is long before my time so I've never seen or heard of him until i started expanding the article therefore i have no personal knowledge of him. I've noticed that a lot of England captains up to about the 1980s don't seem to be very large or reliable either. Perhaps a future collaboration maybe? Bizzmag 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

John Edrich was one of England's greatest opening batsmen. He was a tenacious, occasionally brilliant, lefthander who got on with the job and was a great success in Ashes Tests. It is interesting that Bizzmag has not seen or heard of John Edrich but I bet he has seen and heard of Edrich's sometime partner Boycott. John Edrich, as I say, got on with the job. He made sure that he stayed on the back page of the newspapers where sportsmen belong. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WG Grace's career totals

There are a couple of entries on Talk:W._G._Grace about WG's career totals according to Wisden and the ACS.

My take on this is that it is not a Wisden v ACS dispute but history v statistics. In such a case, history must prevail. We cannot rewrite history, even if it is numerically incorrect. We can only add a caveat to the statistics to explain that another source thinks the numbers add up to a different total. Statistics are merely a means of summarising or illustrating history.

This means that where WG is concerned, we must defer to Wisden. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles needing urgent attention

There seem to currently be 484 articles in that category. If there were a reasonable number, then people might set to work on them, but as it is they are more likely to think that it would be a waste of time, as there's no prospect of making substantial inroads when there are so many. Can't the list be pruned to a more manageable number of articles? JH (talk page) 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you psychic? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - just commented on this below. I've noticed that a lot of List of X Test players type articles are missing too. –MDCollins (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Batting and bowling averages

When adding leading batsmen and bowlers to season pages, I am not entirely sure which ruling I should use to determine the batsmen and bowlers with the best average. Currently I am using the Wisden ruling which states 8 completed innings for batsmen and 10 wickets in 10 games for bowlers. Should I continue with this, or is there a Wikipedia ruling I am unfamiliar with? Thanks Schumi555 09:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. –MDCollins (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done a few of these and have arbitrarily upped the ante to 10 innings and 20 wickets to stop one performance with bat or ball (often on a dodgy pitch or in a lesser game) distorting the figures. I've also included the touring team stats in these tables, but kept a minimum of five domestic players, so in the 1948 English cricket season, for instance, there are rather a lot of batsmen in the table just because the Australian tourists were so good that season. And I've done aggregate as well as average tables. But these are just my arbitrary decision: there are no rules here. Johnlp 11:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kenya national cricket team/Peer review

The peer review for the Kenya national cricket team has stagnated though the article looks to be in good shape. If anyone wants to contribute, feel free.Black hole77 ^{talk | contrib} 19:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Strike rate

Hi,

Does this histogram "Image:CricketBattingStrikeRateHistogram.gif" mean anything to anyone? It is linked on the strike rate article, but is it somebody's personal career strike rate (if so whose?), and as there is no key on it, it seems pretty meaningless to me.

Any ideas? –MDCollins (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You could ask User:Dmmaus who created it in early 2005 and it still an active participant, though not seen around these parts as often as in the past, which is a shame as his contributions were always welcome. Johnlp 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Its ok, just fathomed it out. The y axis is the number of players with a career strike rate on the x axis. It was looking at the equivalent "Image:CricketBattingAverageHistogram.gif with Bradman's exposed 99.94 that gave it away. Should still have a key though! –MDCollins (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cricket articles needing attention

I suspect few of you are aware of the existence of this very useful category which, at time of writing, contains the not inconsiderable number of 484 items. The category is activated via the {{WP Cricket|class=|importance=|attention=yes}} tag on an article's talk page whereby "class=" and "importance=" supply the article's ratings.

I've been using the attention flag for any article I've found that has a warning tag like "please expand" or whatever.

Of late, I've been trying to keep my promise to do something about all the season and tour articles I created – which seemed such a good idea at the time (but were not). The attention flag has come in handy with those. Wine helps too.

I've now completed a general housekeeping task incorporating all tour and season articles in particular but I've widened the scope somewhat to include articles about pre-20th century cricket re players, events, teams, venues and histories. I can now report on the status of all these umpteen hundred (nay, a couple of thousand or more) articles.

All season and tour articles now have correct references, categories and ratings but there are 250 season articles and 190 tour articles flagged for attention as "bare stubs"; plus another 95 (all Australian) seasons and 87 tours (mainly of India) which are still redlinks.

On the bright side, I believe all club, venue, event and histories articles are satisfactory and none require attention.

Biographies by sheer volume alone are always going to be a problem. I have concentrated on cricketers of the 18th and 19th centuries, though some from the 20th century have been included. The existing biographies are all satisfactory but the problem is that there are still numerous redlinks, especially re 19th century players (see the to-do list).

A view I have always held about Wikipedia is that the redlinks outnumber the bluelinks. I still believe that is so. More wine. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a slightly less severe category, so that the URGENT ones are significantly reduced and we could have a drive to sort the 'really urgent' ones out, and unclutter them from the more mundane 'request attention'. Perhaps we should/could go through the list and just separate the would need attention from desperate urgent attention...I also feel that redlinks don't need urgent attention (which was presumably meant for unwikified/inaccurate/poor articles rather than the stubs). I would therefore suggest that although the tour articles are great, there are an awful lot of them, and articles like Bowling average and Off side are marked and would probably take a couple of hours to fix.

Surely low importance articles can't be 'Urgent'?? –MDCollins (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Jack's redesign of the To-do list at the top of this page is hugely helpful, since a lot of the links now go through to a single list of articles dominated by 18th and 19th century topics. While there should be a (single) link through to such a list, I much preferred this panel as an alerting place where project members (and others) could put their requests for articles forward. So I was going to revert it and then add a single link to Jack's list, unless there are big objections.

And I agree with MDC that low-importance articles can't really be urgent, though that's one of the problems of having a rating system that purports to be able to differentiate objectively between levels of notability. Johnlp 11:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

LATER: I've now redone the to-do list to be less, well, "Jack-oriented". ;-) Johnlp 23:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Last Man Stands

Is this notable or should it be sent to AFD? Gizza^Discuss ^© 09:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds made up to me. Speedy deletion, never mind AFD. Andrew nixon 10:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Women's Twenty20 cricket

Hi everyone. Pulled some things together to make the above. Hope that's okay! I'm sure it will get expanded as the sport grows. SGGH ^speak! 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nationality flags for county players

Where the names of players in county squads have nationality flags attached, it's not always obvious which flag should be used. Currently, a bit of a war seems to have broken out in the Surrey article over the flags of Chris Jordan (cricketer) and Jade Dernbach. In Jordan's case, he is a Barbadian but, having an English grandmother, he is qualified to play for England and I believe has said that his ambition is to do so. So should he have the Barbadian flag or the English flag? JH (talk page) 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To start with, having an English grandmother does not make one automatically eligible to play for England in cricket, so that needs to go from the article. He first played for Surrey Second XI in 2006, so he'd only be eligible for England if he moved to England in 2003, and had British (or Irish) citizenship. Andrew nixon 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I'll delete it. I was going by what his Cricinfo profile says[1] but maybe I've misinterpreted it. Or maybe Cricinfo are wrong, which wouldn't be a first. JH (talk page) 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, he [Jordan] does have British citizenship, (via a British passport). He does say he is 100% Barbadian though even if he plays for Surrey as a British player, and appears to want to play for England. see this interview. –MDCollins (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If an English grandparent qualified one to play for England, then Kevin Pietersen would not have had to fulfil a residential qualification! Cricinfo are wrong, which as you say wouldn't be a first. In amongst all the furore over Warne's application for a German passport, they reported that he would become a Kolpak player, when of course he'd be an EU player! Andrew nixon 21:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it has little to do with having an English grandparent. For information, the 2007 ECB regs state that

Regulation for playing for England

1 Subject to the overriding discretion of the ECB, acting with the consent of the International Cricket Council, a Cricketer will only be qualified to play for England in a Test Match or in a One Day International Match if:

(a) he is either a British citizen or an Irish citizen; and

either (i) he was born within England and Wales;

or (ii) he has been resident in England and Wales for the immediately preceding four consecutive years;

with the British citizenship compling with the British Nationality Act 1981 and the British nationality law.

Useless knowledge, but somebody might want it...–MDCollins (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No knowledge is useless. It just hasn't come up in a pub quiz yet. --LiamE 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cricketers up for deletion

First class player David Ash up for deletion here [2] Nick mallory 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And now Shaheedur_Rahman is on AfD, a chap who played two one day internationals for Bangladesh. [3]

Some people really need to do some research before nominating! Andrew nixon 11:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Test/ODI century tables to bios

Hi,

I'd like a view on the addition of century tables to biographical articles by User:Subhaan123. Do you all find them necessary, I'm not sure whether they're just one box too many. Examples at Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell (cricketer) and probably others.

They are not so intrusive with current players with just a few, but taken to a logical conclusion, what about Sachin Tendulkar - it would need a sub-article to itself!

Can we head for some consensus over them?

–MDCollins (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I just looked at Pietersen. The statistics against each opposition and the list of man of the match awards are an even worse idea. (Can you really deduce anything from the statistics against each opposition after a small number of games? And is anyone going to keep them up to date?)

The article is just filling up with tables. This isn't the job of an encyclopaedia. Go to Cricinfo Statsguru if you want to know that sort of thing. Quote more selective statistics if you want to prove a particular point.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree. Although I must confess to the Pietersen tables - when preparing the article for FA, a lot of it was directly influenced by the Paul Collingwood article which passed FA some weeks before. As the stats themselves come directly from either Statsguru or Cricketarchive they probably shouldn't be here at all, just an external link. Perhaps a wider discussion, and a project consensus, on the overall look of articles is needed. –MDCollins (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Stephen. Horrid looking. Well-written articles cover important innings anyway, and time spent on this would be better spent improving articles. Leave it to cricinfo and CricketArchive to do statistical stuff like this. Johnlp 17:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've notified the creator (Subhaan) about this discussion, although I am now heading on a wikibreak for a week, so I'll have to leave implementation of any decision to you guys. For the record, I'll go along with anything, but I'm not a big fan of statistics taking of biographies. –MDCollins (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi fellow Wikipedians

I have just read your comments above. I myself do agree that it will be a a very tough task to create tables for players such as Tendulkar, but these player tables provide cricket viewers with a players recent form, for instance you can tell when a cricket player last made a century (eg what year), what is his favourite ground or opposition. Many cricket fanatics would want to know these things. The whole point of Wikipedia is to have the most amount of sufficient information in its articles. Hopefully my views will change your mind and allow me and other wikipedians continue with making the stat boxes.

Subhaan123. 22:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that information can add to an article. But it would be much better in prose and not in some table. Andrew nixon 21:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Would cricket fanatics not use cricinfo or cricketarchive? Remember that these articles aim to be of 'paper-encyclopedia' quality (although I concede we do have more space), and keep in mind the longevity of such articles, which will probably outlast the people updating the stats etc. –MDCollins (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If you allow me to continue creating these boxes, i will willingly start making it for players such as Tendulkar. Subhaan123 19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

New Infobox complete

With much help from MDCollins we now consider Template:Infobox cricketer biography ready for implementation. Examples can be see at User:Joe_p15/Sandbox2. Feel free to experiment yourselves in the sandbox and see if you have any problems. Anybody have any objections to starting to implement this infobox? Thanks, Joe p15 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me. I think we should agree to use this for all player pages from now on. It's a fantastic infobox. Andrew nixon 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent. The "international" in the template name is a bit misleading, though, since it's not confined to players who have played in international matches. Why not simply call it "cricketer biography"? JH (talk page) 18:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good spot! Its been moved to Template:Infobox cricketer biography. Thanks Joe p15 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've missed all this, but thought I might as well put a note here to the effect that I also think it's excellent, and will try to remember to use it when I get back to writing bios in (I hope) a few weeks. Loganberry (Talk) 21:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess if anyone else has any suggestions, now is the time to air them before we 'roll out' - during which all help will be gratefully welcome!! Note it also works for the fairer sex as well. One small limitation is that it places links to country cricket team/List of country Test players, where the actual article might be "List of Irish ODI players". I've created redirects for all of the major nations, but please create redirects on sight for any others. –MDCollins (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry not to have commented before, but have been away. This is brilliant stuff: well done to both Joe p15 and Mdcollins for (as far as I'm concerned) finally nailing one of the longest-running debates on these talk pages. Johnlp 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Aye, good job guys. Looks great now. Thumbs up from me. :) AllynJ 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done, much easier to read the infobox details now. Fits in with the football and rugby league infoboxes nicely. Londo06 13:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The new info boxes are a great improvement, well done to everyone who worked on this. Nick mallory 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, great-looking infobox. :)

Just a thought - it is possible to tell all the old templates (Infobox Cricketer, Infobox Women Cricketer, Infobox Historic cricketer, and all other sorts of evil combinations ;) ) to display the new one instead - it's templates calling templates, admittedly, but at least it's standard. That way, we can do a mass replacement, while eventually phasing the old ones out without showing a lot of different-looking infoboxes on different pages. I've tried to hash out a replacement for {{Infobox Cricketer}} at User:Sam Vimes/Template - it looks decent, but I can't switch off the born and died information (or, I can switch off "died", but then I have to turn on living, which isn't quite right...), and having an "age expression error" all across is a bit awkward. (Also, the international row vanishes when there's no international information, the domestic row doesn't...) Is it possible to remedy this? Sam Vimes | Address me 20:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The umpire's raised finger

Apropos of absolutely nothing, does anyone know why umpires raise their index finger to indicate 'out'? I know that tennis players do the same thing to indicate the ball was out, but that's obviously just copied from cricket. In the Olympics of Ancient Greece a boxer could surrender by raising a single finger, maybe it's from that? Nick mallory 04:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to know (and for this information to be added onto Umpire (cricket)) the origin of all umpiring signals. BlackJack may know. Gizza^Discuss ^© 09:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Were the signals invented in one go? Or did they just evolve? It's an interesting question. Everyone knows what they are, but nobody knows where they come from. This is a good article on the evolution of cricket [4] but there's no mention of the signals. Nick mallory 02:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Masai 162#Bowling graphs

User:Raven4x4x's batting graphs have inspired User:Masai 162 to create an equivalent for bowlers. While I believe they will be very beneficial, I feel the colour coding for the number of wickets in somewhat complicated. Examples of bowling graphs Masai has created are listed on his user page. I will be looking forward to see everyone else's opinion. Thanks Gizza^Discuss ^© 07:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to use the colour scheme below from now on. Hopefully it should make it easier to see where the bowler took the most wickets in an innings. Masai 162 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am moderately-severe red-green and moderately red-blue colourblind, but I see 6-9 as the same colour, with 5 and 10 as quite similar also. Admittedly, it is very rare that bowlers take that many wickets but it is a thought i guess. Ansell 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was worried about with the new colour scheme - colourblind users not being able to interpret the graphs. However, that won't be a problem any more - earlier today I decided to scrap the colour coding idea altogether because making the graphs with colour coding was simply becoming too tedious (especially for bowlers with long careers - having to manually change the colour of over 200 bars in MS Paint is no fun at all (Excel has no function to make those colour coded graphs automatically)).Instead I'm going to do the graphs almost exactly like the ones on howstat.com.au - with two bars for each innings, one for runs conceded and one for wickets taken. This will make it better for everybody - I can produce graphs more quickly using this method, and they don't rely as heavily on colour to convey information. All graphs will be changed over the next few days. Masai 162 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sky coverage

Just saw a couple of minutes of today's ODI on SKY. Anyone know what the icon in the bottom right hand corner of the screen is for? It looks like a pint of beer. --Dweller 13:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

From that, I guess that you were in the pub? Andrew nixon 14:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Boom boom. No, actually, there's a screen at work. --Dweller 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was being serious. There is "pint of beer" logo on Sky sports when you watch it in pubs! It must be something to do with having a business subscription as opposed to a residential subscription. Andrew nixon 16:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can confirm, if you watch sky in a public place without a beer glass on the screen they are being illegal! Joe p15 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And if you watch Sky in a public place without a beer glass in your hand, then you're missing the whole point... Johnlp 20:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything more annoying in the world than on screen logos on TV programmes? Nick mallory 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, this doesn't happen down under, yet. :) Gizza^Discuss ^© 09:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am down under, and Channel Nine always has a logo up, all the channels do, even SBS. The only time they take the watermark down is during the adverts (of course) which is the only time it might possibly be useful in telling channels apart. SBS now plays repetitive drum music under its athletics coverage too so muzak during the games will be next. Thank god for TMS. Nick mallory 02:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the "beer" logo found in pubs and clubs. Yes there is the commercial networks's logo but that's another story... Gizza^Discuss ^© 04:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Best deletion debate ever!

TexasAndroid has nominated the India_vs_England_2007_Cricket_Series for deletion because an individual cricket series doesn't merit its own article. Nick mallory 13:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well frankly as it stands its not worth having it. Think I might do a bit of expansion. --LiamE 13:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a duplicate of the real article Indian cricket team in England in 2007. His point is that it should go not because it's a duplicate, but because the tour itself isn't notable. Nick mallory 13:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that and have redirected it accordingly. --LiamE 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Namibian cricketers

Finally there are some new Namibian cricketers for me to look at, six players debuting for the Under 19 team against Kenya in the Africa Under-19 Championship. This list is just to remind me when and if I find the time to write up some notes on the National Championship.

These are merely for my own reference but I know I'm going to come see this page soon in the future. Sorry for using others' space if they were expecting something to be written here for the benefit of others apart from myself. Raymond van Schoor is an interesting case, he is a relation of Melt and the former captain of the Under-15 and Under-17 team. Let's see how many of these play tomorrow's game against Zambia. Bobo . 16:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

NB, several players have been deleted for playing only in Under-19 competitions, even the Under-19 world cup. I'm undecided on the issue, but the consensus seems to be developing that first-class or List A is required for keeping the article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Stephen. I might leave these be for now but I have made a complete list of the tournament's debutants thus far on my Sandbox. One such name, Raymond van Schoor, has an interesting past in the Namibian cricket team but until now has not broken into the Under-19s. Bobo . 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This link appears to agree with my latest findings that T Louw's first name (unavailable on Cricket Archive), is in fact Tiaan Louw. Adapted in links. Bobo . 16:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is this?

Snapped 359 pictures for wikipedia at a domestic Pro 40 game this evening, but who the heck is this? It's really annoying me! Please someone message me telling me who it is so I can put it on his article! SGGH ^speak! 22:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be Charles Colville. No article on wikipedia yet. He never played at a high level either.Andrew nixon 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and this is David Masters right? SGGH ^speak! 22:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Colville article created by SGGH. --Dweller 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports)

Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Something to keep an eye on

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/308994.html It has been proposed that the South African rebel tours of the 1980's are given first-class status. If this happens then we will need to do alot of updating ...... Crickettragic 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No updating needed. All three of our stats sources; Cricket Archive, Cricinfo and Wisden already regard the matches as first-class. It's only the ICC who don't! Andrew nixon 05:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought Cricinfo didn't, but the other two did, for some reason. Indeed, I certainly remember some major discrepancies on Cricinfo re: South African players in that era. Hmm. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 07:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's mainly players who played in the non-white competitions. They were upgraded to first-class, but cricinfo didn't change their records. Andrew nixon 09:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing tags

Paul Nixon, and from memory Matt Prior I think, had no WP:CRIC tag on their talk pages. Just a heads-up that a number of significant cricket articles might be missing the project tag. Perhaps you might want to get a bot to tag with WP:CRIC any article in the category "cricket" an its subcats? SGGH ^speak! 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

World cup squad templates (again)

Can we come to some sort of consensus on this, as I'm getting rather annoyed with it. I'd like to propose a poll, but I'd like other people's opinions on what the choices should be. I'm thinking they should be: Keep, Delete or Keep but have them automatically collapsed. I still don't see the point in them either. Andrew nixon 09:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We already had a straw poll here. It was pretty much 50-50, on the condition that they were all collapsed, which hasn't happened. I think if the supporters of these boxes won't do the work to collapse them all, the boxes should be removed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Cricket bot? --Dweller 09:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd happily remove them all with CricketBot. I'm not sure how easy it would be to make them all hideable and wrap them in a {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} if there is more than one, as discussed at the previous discussion. To be honest, I really dislike them and I'm reluctant to spend a lot of time doing anything other than removing them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Test/ODI century tables to bios

Continuation of discussion now archived

Subhaan, before you make more tables, such as Sachin Tendulkar - I was not only pointing out the severe effort required to duplicate the information readily available elsewhere, but the sheer article space it takes up will almost certainly be detrimental to a good/FA candidate (the ultimate aim for articles). Also, if other editors don't really like them, I would rather you spent your time improving the text and prose of articles rather than in creating tables. –MDCollins (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

cricket no pic.png

A user, David Gerard, has been replacing all instances of Image:cricket no pic.png with Image:Replace this image1.svg. I've complained at User talk:David Gerard because of the problems we've had with this approach in the past.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for complaining to him because I think what he's done make the pages look ridiculous. Hopefully the pages can be reverted back to what they were. Crickettragic 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have done about 500 cricketers, and to have used a bot in other places where he's been doing similar. If he's used a bot this time, then presumably he could use the same bot to revert them. I agree they look bad and they invite copyright problems. Johnlp 22:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I can probably revert them pretty easily with CricketBot, although I'm extremely short of time at the moment. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird

I've replaced all instances of this Replace this image, with images of cricketnopic, but they don't appear to be displaying on the page. Have I made some kind of mistake? Bobo . 13:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah right. cricketnopic has now changed to a one-pixel horizontal blank-space, right? Bobo . 13:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has been for a long time. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for stepping in to do this, by the way. Although when you say "I've replaced all instances", do you mean "I'm replacing all images"? There are still a lot left — see Special:Contributions/David Gerard. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not keeping up with what was going on. I understand what is happening with the single-pixel image now, thank you for clarification.

As for replacing all images, I'm sorry — I was going from a small subset of contributions on the What links here page which linked to cricketers, rather than a contributions list, thank you for pointing me to the complete list of contributions. I'll see what I can do and get back to you. Bobo . 14:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. See what you think. Bobo . 17:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Bobo. Amazing work. Johnlp 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, thank you for realizing that this was an issue and notifying that it had to be done. As I mentioned on your talk page, anything else need doing (relating to these images, and within a sensible bracket of reason), please let me know. Bobo . 20:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Twenty20 Internationals

As we approach the 2007 Twenty20 World Champs, there have been practice matches between international sides. In particular there is a Quadrangular Series between Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kenya and Uganda ending to a close as I write this.

Now the matches between BAN, PAK and KEN have been recognised as T20 International matches in Cricinfo's Statguru section (http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/index.html?class=3), however where do figures obtained against the like of Uganda go? I thought they'd fall under the first class equivalent of Twenty20 international - Twenty20.

Madbassist 13:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume so too. The ICC has certainly announced that only teams with ODI status get to play official T20I's. So I presume that Kenya vs Uganda, say, has the status of a domestic T20 match (luckily for Kenya!). Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

CricketArchive says otherwise: the tour homepage says they're "misc" matches, which means no IT20 or domestic T20 status. Presumably this is because Uganda - as a national team - don't have FC status outside of the Intercontinental Cup (see: the only FC matches played by the current Ugandan captain). This is simply an assumption I'm making, though, and I could be wrong. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Allyn has it right. Andrew nixon 19:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Indian Cricket League ever starts, what will be the status of those matches? Nick mallory 05:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that their status will be similar to Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket. Gizza^Discuss ^© 06:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Crickfacts

Found this when patrolling CSD. Speedy? AfD? --Dweller 13:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

IANAA, but it looks like a speedy to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

New bio infobox - inconsistencies in the "Domestic team information" section

Apologies if this has been discussed, but compare Ian Botham and Don Bradman. Botham's single-season stay with Queensland is listed as "1987–1988", which makes it look a bit like two English seasons rather than the single 1987-88 Australian season. However, Bradman's dates for NSW, for example, are given as "1927/28–1933/34". Following that style, Botham would have been listed as "1987/88". Is there a consensus for which should be used? Loganberry (Talk) 23:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the years should be listed as dates rather than seasons, therefore if Bradman first played in 1927, it should say that as to the untrained eye it looks more accurate than 1927/8. That's certainly how I've worked it so far. We can leave seasons to Cricketarchive - afterall, it is a waste of time trying to duplicate that. The column header says 'years' not 'seasons', therefore I would put the year of the first/last matches as a date range rather than a season range. Incidentally, if Botham didn't play until the second half of the 1987/88 season, I would put it as 1988. If there is consensus to do otherwise, then I'll not argue it, but that's my thoughts anyway. –MDCollins (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say the opposite. The cricket season is much more relevant than the calendar year. Maybe the header should say years, not seasons. It is worth making a distinction between one season in Australia (1987/88) and two seasons in England (1987-1988). JPD (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

China women's team

A little bit of a debate here. I'm sure I'm right, but can someone have a look at my references and check for me? Andrew nixon 09:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Leicestershire logo.jpg in Template:Leicestershire County Cricket Club Squad

This image has (as seen on the image page) been marked for deletion on the grounds of invalid fair use rationale. I think the problem is that to comply with the fair use criteria, a separate rationale would have to be completed for every single article on which the image is used, and as it's used on every article that includes the squad template...! I'm sure I saw somewhere that tags are not allowed to use non-free images in any case. Either way, I don't think the Leics squad template can justify using the club logo. Loganberry (Talk) 00:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think there's trouble brewing here. I would think that the only article that would qualify for fair use of this logo is the article about Leicestershire County Cricket Club and absolutely nowhere else. I note that the image is used in dozens of articles and, in the case of season overviews, other CCC images are used. I would advocate removing all instances of the use of the flag other than in the County articles, and the addition of which article each fair use rationale is relevant to for each image. Otherwise we'll find a lot of deleted images all of a sudden... This is a big problem... The Rambling Man 06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The same has occurred for the Kent logo. JH (talk page) 09:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it from the template but it (and all other county logos) need to be removed from all but the county pages. Volunteers? The Rambling Man 09:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Done for the county pages, still a few to go though.~~All done. All images for all counties now only link to the county's page (with the exception of Sussex, which also links to Coat of arms of Sussex). AMBerry (talk | contribs) ~~10:46~~12:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it's extremely important that we do our best to keep to the non-free-image rules, even though it can be frustrating in a case like this. Though for different reasons, it's a somewhat similar case to our chronic lack of player photos: we could make the pages look nicer by using Cricinfo/county photos, but not while staying within policy - and policy trumps attractiveness. Loganberry (Talk) 15:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

PR for Bradman

I have nominated the Bradman article for PR, but it's still a work in progress. I would like to focus on the footnotes and adding cns, if needed. It might be helpful if someone can archive the discussion at the article's talk page, I'm not sure how to do it. Cheers, Phanto282 06:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Archived, just for you Phanto. The Rambling Man 06:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates again

Another new template has appeared at the top of the Category:Kent cricketers listing. I'm not convinced that it serves any useful purpose, and even if it does, I'd be hard to persuade that it should be at the top of the page. One of the articles that it points to is a list of notable past Kent cricketers, which duplicates information in the overall list of Kent cricketers and which is based on a definition of notability that isn't the one that we've operated across the whole of the cricket project. I'm inclined to wade in here, but as I'm a known template-hater, I thought I'd better ask first, lest I trample on someone's sensitivities. Johnlp 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There was an error in the template the link on it links to the wrong page, meaning your comment is on a talk page for which a template doesn't exist (Template:Kent County Cricket Club as opposed to Template:Kent CCC). Might be best to copy your comment over to Template talk:Kent CCC, and then nom the old talk page for speedy deletion (Template:db-talk). Was made by User:AMBerry, if you wanna give him a message (though I think he checks here reasonably often, anyway).

I have no opinion on it or other such boxes. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The template isn't obtrusive and gives useful information. It would be better is an alternative word to "notable" could be found for that list of cricketers, though. "Significant" or "important" maybe? JH (talk page) 08:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think on the Category:Kent cricketers page it is obtrusive. It's right at the top of the page, before you reach any of the information that the page is actually about. Johnlp 16:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone could tell me how to stick the template at the bottom of the category page, I'd be happy to move it. Then again, if you feel the template is unnecessary, I'll just get rid of it anyway. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 20:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to move it to the bottom: I certainly think it would look better there. Trying (with some difficulty) to set aside my prejudice against most templates (as making us look more like the ragtag classified advertising end of a freesheet newspaper than an encyclopedia), I think there is a serious point about adding templates only where the individual template adds value to a particular page that can't be obtained easily through more usual forms of link in the text. (Also, of course, in the case of infoboxes, as a way of storing statistical or other information in an easy-to-access format.) On that basis, your Kent CCC template would in my view have merit on the Kent CCC article page (though most of the information will be in that page somewhere anyway) and maybe in some other locations. But I find it difficult to conceive of a template that would add value to category pages or list pages: these pages are already "working" pages, doing a job of routing readers and editors around the system, and I don't think templates help them to do that job better. But that is of course only my view: what do others think? Johnlp 21:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Schools cricket

It may be that I can't see the wood for the trees, but I don't think there is an article about cricket in schools. The development of the game in the English public schools has been quite important, especially in the provision of good players to Oxbridge. Is anyone aware of a schools article as I might start one if not? Does anyone have any suggestions about categories for such an article: I presume Forms of cricket might be one or perhaps Domestic competitions? --Fiddlers Three 16:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is Joe Maddock?

The "Notable 20th and 21st century players and topics without an article" part of the To-do list here has a redlink for Joe Maddock (rugby player). What is his relevance to cricket? Cricinfo finds only two Maddocks, neither a Joe. Loganberry (Talk) 22:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He's presumably this chap. Not much sign of a cricketing career. He was added to the to-do list by an IP editor who is, I think, the mischievous person who has added all manner of "interesting" facts to cricket bios over the past year or so, and also has a habit of creating biographies, mainly of New Zealanders, on talk pages. We haven't had much of this mischief for a while, so maybe Joe Maddock has spared us that. I'll remove him from the list. Johnlp 22:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of references in bio articles

I happened to read Wayne Daniel recently, and though it's quite nicely written I do admit to being a bit uncomfortable at the almost complete lack of references; the Cricinfo link at the bottom of the infobox is the only one. This passage, for example, is a problem:

he would have been the second name on the scoresheet after Brian Lara had he been playing twenty years later.

Says who? That sort of assertion surely needs backing up with sources and rewording (as in "X and Y considered that he would..."), so that it doesn't look like POV. There are other examples in the article, and in many bio articles - including, I have no doubt, some I've written, though mine tend to be rather workmanlike/dull (eg Herbert Hopkins) and so contain little opinion anyway.

My point is that citations and references are not optional extras to bio (or any other) articles. We're not writing a collection of personal appreciations, however enjoyable that might be; we're writing an encyclopedia, and that needs plenty of references. Apologies for the somewhat didactic tone here, but I think this is very important. Loganberry (Talk) 12:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with the above. I've often been puzzled at how players with dozens of Test and ODI caps have just one or two references when I can manage to find at least half a dozen for an obscure Irish player with only one first-class appearance. Shape up everyone! Andrew nixon 14:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two separate points in the first comment here. The passage in Wayne Daniel is patently POV and needs to have a credited source or to be removed (I'd go for the latter in this instance, since the viewpoint proceeds from a false premise - Wayne Daniel isn't/wasn't playing in the same era as Lara, so the assertion is false/daft). Unattributed viewpoints and weasel words ("considered by many as...", "arguably the best...") are indeed a problem.

But whether we need an individual reference after every single point of fact when many of the points derive from a single overall source, such as Wisden/Cricinfo or CricketArchive.com is, I think, more doubtful. If, in the case of Herbert Hopkins, we pointed the reader in the direction of the Herbert Hopkins entry in CricketArchive, which contains details of the teams he played for, the individual matches where his contribution was significant, etc etc, then is that a problem? I think we could reasonably assume any reader who was that interested would have enough wit to find the relevant facts (which are only corroborating what is written in the article anyway) that are grouped in the place we have pointed to. Our article is still referenced and verifiable, and we wouldn't need to have footnote numbers at the ends of many of the sentences, which would aid overall readability.

In other words, I think you can "over-reference" as well as under-reference. Johnlp 20:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the question of whether one might "over-reference" is one that I asked about a few months ago - I think in this very forum, though I can't find it in a quick skim through the archives. I seem to remember that another editor was of the opinion that I should "over-reference" like that, just to be on the safe side as it were. If you look at some of my older bio articles, you'll see that I used not to do that; I think the change was sometime in 2006.

However... I have quite a bit of sympathy for Johnlp's position on this, and I think that my personal preference would be to have inline citations for the sort of information that Wisden obituaries provide, but not to require them for every mention of a score - because, as Johnlp points out, CricketArchive is easily checkable for such things anyway. What I don't want is to go back to the "not citing every score" style, and then find that chunks of my writing have been challenged and deleted on grounds of not having said citations! Loganberry (Talk) 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've deliberately written John Higgins (cricketer) in a much less "scorecard-reference-heavy" style. I have included one on the (possibly rather shaky) grounds that it was Higgins' best with the ball and a significant feat was recorded by the opposition (the same two men bowling unchanged throughout both innings). On the other hand, I've refrained from citing the scorecard for his first-class debut (eight years before his second match) though I was tempted to do so on the grounds that his Wisden obituarist doesn't seem to have known about it. Loganberry (Talk) 00:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Said article has now been rated "Stub" by WikiProject Biography. That seems a little bit harsh to me... why do I have a nasty feeling that not having many inline citations is behind that?! Loganberry (Talk) 02:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Higgins article, more in-line citations are needed, in my opinion. None of the references directly say that he played for Staffordshire, none of them directly say when his first-class debut was and that only one day was played in the match, none of the references directly refer to any of the other games mentioned in the article and none of the references mention that he umpired first-class games (except the Test). All that can be found by following links on the Cricket Archive profile, yes, but I don't think that's enough. Whilst we may know exactly how to find that out, a non-cricket fan (and some cricket fans!) may not know how to find that out. In my opinion, if something isn't directly referred to in a reference, it needs to be. Andrew nixon 05:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Higgins article is Start class this morning, so maybe they've revised their view. I doubt anyway that it would be the citations (or lack of) that would cause the rating to be one thing or another: ratings are pretty arbitrary anyway, and vary from one project to another. My view is that Higgins is just right: enough references for Higgins' fans to go off and get their detailed fill of the man from the other sources cited, and not so many that it cannot be read as a good piece of writing in itself. Surely being accurate and readable are what the encyclopedia is all about? Johnlp 08:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I have one editor of the opinion that my reference-heavy bio needs fewer references, and one editor of the opinion that my reference-light bio needs more references. Unfortunately, I can't satisfy both of you! Given how many of these things I write, it's not something I can consider peripheral to my editing, so I have something of a problem there. As far as the Start-class rating goes, I asked the editor who originally rated it Stub-class on their User talk page, and they agreed it should be higher. Loganberry (Talk) 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a thought on this, which I think I may adopt: to continue the reference-light style on grounds of readability, but to add an extra link at the bottom to the Lists of matches and detailed statistics page; that makes it more explicit than the statistical summary page where scorecards and so on can be found Loganberry (Talk) 23:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

National team templates

I was thinking about converting the cricket team templates to use the parameterised {{cr}} template... except I've noticed that there's a separate set of templates for the World Cup... i.e. {{ENGc}} instead of {{cr-eng}}. Why were two sets of templates needed? Unless there's a reason not to do this, I will convert use of the {{cr-eng}} set to {{cr}}, but I think I need some explanation before I substitute any use of the {{ENGc}} set. --StuartBrady (Talk) 17:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, they've all been converted now, so I just hope there was no reason for having two sets of templates. --StuartBrady (Talk) 01:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think that may have been an error by me quite a while back. I made the {{ENGc}}-styled templates after being unsuccessful in finding any similar existing templates. After I started using it in a few articles I then somehow came across a project page listing out existing {{cr-eng}}-styled templates. Unfortunately by then the use of the new template had spread and we ended up having two of the same templates hanging around the entire site. Sorry for that, but thanks for finally introducing a new template. It'll make life a hell of a lot easier if we ever need to change the flag links or anything else. mdmanser 02:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems fairly typical for this sort of template to be poorly documented (and poorly maintained, too). What seems to happen quite often is that new templates get created, but they're not added to the appropriate categories and template lists — at least the 'ENGc'-style set was (mostly) categorised! As for introducing the new template, you can thank Andrwsc for that, although it is nice to know that my sed scripting is not altogether unappreciated. :-) I do agree, it'll be much easier to change certain things (such as flag sizes and borders) if we need to... and it is quite easy to keep {{cr}} and {{cr-rt}} consistent! --StuartBrady (Talk) 11:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well on that note I'll now thank Andrwsc officially. Great work to both of you! mdmanser 12:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that I have been a bit WP:BOLDer and lazier lately... After Stuart and I replaced every instance of all the old templates, I went ahead and speedy deleted them. I don't think anybody will be too fussed about that, but I thought I should mention it here, albeit after the fact! Andrwsc 15:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I created the original cr-eng templates ages ago, so say thanks for the improvement. I see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Team templates is updated also. Good work. —Moondyne 16:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)