Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 55

Bomber Wells

It's taken the Telegraph a long time to publish an obituary, but now that they've done so it's excellent: [1] Lots of good anecdotes, at least one or two of which ought to be included in his Wiki article. At the moment his article doesn't really give the flavour of the man. JH (talk page) 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rose Bowl, Hampshire

The Rose Bowl, Hampshire page has been vandalised. I couldn't fix it. Could someone please do so?Abeer.ag (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with it. Has it been fixed already? Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It was vandalised and fixed twice back in February. The recent edit about musical acts appearing there is okay. I think confusion may have arisen because the ClueBot thing got involved. BlackJack | talk page 08:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

T. K. Sukumaran

Another first-class cricketer up for deletion. Help appreciated!Andrew nixon (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please try and add all cricket deletion debates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket (and all project members, please bookmark that page!). Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite all the huffing and puffing from the latest "expert" about how CricInfo does not recognise the Madras Presidency as first-class, guess where we found copies of the full scorecards? In addition to Stephen's advice above, can I recommend that WP:CRIN is always quoted in these discussions to emphasise notability in project terms and WP:ATHLETE in site terms. BlackJack | talk page 08:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to all who dealt with this. I couldn't vote myself, or add it to the deletion sorting list, as I've been on holiday and was stuck using the rather limited PSP browser, which fails on any text input field longer than 256 characters! Andrew nixon (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The character who perpetrated the AfD has just been blocked indefinitely. Apparently he was troll!  :-) BlackJack | talk page 19:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ian Johnson (cricketer) at FAC

Another part of the Invincibles is now at FAC. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Johnson (cricketer) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield Shield

Some good news here. Once an announcement is made we can think about renaming articles etc. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 08:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent news! And kudos to the new sponsors, whoever they turn out to be, for seemingly not insisting that their name be given to the trophy. JH (talk page) 08:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant! I for one have been undertaking a boycott of Pura Milk products for the last however many years as a protest against their renaming of the Sheffield Shield. While I don't wish to claim that this boycott was instrumental in getting the Sheffield Shield name back, it's great to see that some tradition is going to be kept. --Roisterer (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That is good news. Thanks for sharing it. I think we all owe Roisterer a vote of thanks for his efforts. Moondyne 11:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is now the "Sheffield Shield presented by Weet-Bix". An improvement perhaps but when CA uses the full name (six times in the linked media release) it reminds me of Idiocracy! I see a redirect has already been done, I seem to recall the SS and PC being different articles before. I am not sure if the move has lost any content. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article really could do with a photo of the shield - from memory its a very impressive bit of silverware. I presume that it would be on display in the SCG currently. Moondyne 09:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, it's held at the Sports Museum at the MCG. Those Victorians... JPD (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
A long time ago when it was held by WA it had a special roped-off corner in the Members bar. I remember that you could actually touch it. Here's a picture. Moondyne 00:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cricket clothing

I see this was unilaterally moved, without discussion from its previous name. I don't really mind whether it's called Flannels or Whites (cricket), but hate the current name passionately. I have a mild preference for Flannels, but recall that this is a geographic thing around the cricket world and think Whites is the more common term. So I'd suggest it goes to Whites, with the other two as redirects. Objections? Support? --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely either Flannels or Whites. Absolutely not the present title. I have a question. According to the article, shirts were made of flannel too but I always thought it was a term for the trousers only: is that right? Or,as Andy Stewart might sing: "Allan Donald, where's yer flannels?" BlackJack | talk page 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
As there's also a Cricket clothing and equipment article, I wonder if the article is needed at all. If it is needed, then the new title has the advantage of covering sweaters, one-day "pyjamas", caps and arguably boots, which aren't covered by the terms "flannels" or "whites". In fact, it's even doubtful whether "flannels" includes shirts or is restricted solely to trousers. JH (talk page) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's 'Whites', at least these days, and that's what the article should be called, although I suppose that doesn't cover boots and stuff like that. Flannels only refers to trousers anyway. Nick mallory (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's WG Grace's 160th birthday today

In case anyone cares. Moondyne 00:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be a national holiday. BlackJack | talk page 06:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well we need an extra bank holiday between May and August... Andrew nixon (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
National Beard Day? --Dweller (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No, we need an extra bank holiday between August and December. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Boycott Day it is then! Or why not both? Andrew nixon (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
You're both wrong. We need about 20 extra bank holidays in each period. Well, I do, anyway. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Darren Pattinson

Could someone who understands these things kidly slap an appropriate infobox on the page of the world's newest (most surprised?) Test cricketer? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

NB perusing the article history, I did enjoy this, but I'm not sure I could explain why I found it so amusing. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the most bizarre England selection in recent memory, it's certainly the only time England have picked someone I've never even heard of. Derek Pringle was picked while still an undergraduate I believe but there'd been a lot of buzz about him and Tony Pigott was a strange one, but they were short of fast bowlers in New Zealand and he happened to be around - that's the closest one I can think of. Other swing bowlers have been picked as virtual one offs for Headingley in recent times but Mike Smith and Neil Mallender were respected county bowlers with hundreds of wickets to their names and Martin Saggers and Kabir Ali were decent county performers although obviously out of their class. Quite how we pick a chap who is nearly thirty, has only played a dozen first class games and only started bowling in England this year is beyond me. Matthew Hoggard was an ever present, knows Headingley like the back of his hand and now he's on the scrap heap apparently. Still anything's better than bringing Harmison or Plunkett back I suppose. Let's hope he takes five wickets but if he's more than a one test wonder I'll be amazed. Is the cupboard really so bare? Is this the upshot of half the counties having half a dozen Kolpac players in the ranks? If I was pretty much any up and coming fast bowling hopeful in England, or even seasoned country pro, I'd be pretty miffed at this one. Nick mallory (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a notable claim already on record by CMJ (see the Cricinfo commentary) for this being the biggest surprise debut for England for 99 years, since Douglas Carr. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just pleased that finally an Victorian who does not have the initials SKW is given a chance at Test level, even it is for England! -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Carr was more understandable than this. England needed a secret weapon to pull themselves back in a series, Carr could bowl the new googly, he'd taken a spurt of wickets for Kent. It's not like there aren't other seasoned swing bowlers who could have been given a go. Carr took seven wickets in his first test, apparently, anyone think Pattinson will? Nick mallory (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Rain stopped play"

I was trying to find the article on this (I knew we had one), and finally found it at Rainout (sports). I set up some appropriate redirects, but at present Rainout (sports) only refers to rain stopping play in baseball and motorsports; it's very US-centric. Not knowing that much about cricket, I wondered if the experts here at WP:CRICKET might like to put together a paragraph regarding the effect of rain on cricket play on the Rainout (sports) article? I have left a similar sort of message on the WP:TENNIS talk page. Neıl ☄ 11:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not just have an article for 'rain stopped play' for cricket? Nobody would use 'rainout' for cricket. Nick mallory (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Rain stopped play" would go into the terminology category and should include bad light and something about light meters; plus miscellaneous reasons for stoppages. BlackJack | talk page 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

CI and wiki

Looks like CI is doing with us these days what we used to do with them - rewriting our articles. I first noticed it with Vizzy. It used to be like this when we expanded our article. CI article was recently changed to include three paragraphs from us, including a long quote from Mihir Bose and another one by Kanhai. Joginder Rao didn't have an article in CI till very recently. The source of the present article is an easy guess. Tintin 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

While it would be nice to see some acknowledgement, it is a great demonstration of the improvement this project has made. Let's hope we see more of this. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has ripped far more information from Cricinfo than they've ripped off us, to be fair. Nick mallory (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, some editors here use CI as a source because WP insists on a published source. CI allows original research and, as such, CI doesn't need to use WP as a source. But, if it does, it should reciprocate the acknowledgement that WP gives to it. BlackJack | talk page 19:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This could become extremely inbred, if eg, errors are copied from Wikipedia and propagated into RS, eg User:Blnguyen/Times of India. Imagine someone writing a book using the ToI's errors that it plagiarised from me and that become "mainstream cricket scholarship". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. In the distant past I submitted information to Cricinfo that had no references and which quite possibly includes a mistake or two. Yet, I could quite happily reference that information on CI. --Roisterer (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

EPL

We have (at least) two articles for the forthcoming EPL - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Twenty20_English_Premier_League and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/English_Premier_League_%28cricket%29 here for example. The second appears to me to be a better template - could someone who knows what they are doing merge these two? JP (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Merged content of both in Twenty20 English Premier League which has a better title with no brackets. Fixed categorisation too which was all over the place. BlackJack | talk page 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not just call it byt its title, English Premier League? Tony2Times (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Australian_U-19_cricket_team#2008 Under-19s World Cup

While improving Pattinson's article (looks more like a 'proper' article now, lol) I noticed his brother has been selected for the Aussie U-19s, which led me to Australian_U-19_cricket_team#2008 Under-19s World Cup. Of the three blue links, I have serious doubts about the current notability of two of them. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think there's a pretty clear consensus for cricketers that U-19 internationals are not enough. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Now at AfD. --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Update players' stats automatically?

I've been pondering recently whether it would be possible to update the stats in the players' infoboxes automatically. I'm sure the programming would be possible: the more difficult part would be finding an always up-to-date database that we can pull the stats from. (It obviously wouldn't be appropriate to screen scrape from another website without permission).

Does anyone know of such a database? For example, does anyone have contacts at CricketArchive, and know what their attitude might be to letting us use their statistics, with proper attribution? Or does anyone know of any other database that we might be able to use?

Thanks,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found CricketArchive to be generally very prompt in answering queries addressed to their feedback email address as given on their site, so it might be worth your while asking them if they would be willing to give their permission. JH (talk page) 09:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Jalat Khan

Interesting deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jalat Khan that project members might want to comment on. The player concerned has not played first-class or List A cricket but has played for his national side. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll just comment on this as I'm the one who nominated it for deletion. I originally attempted to speedy delete it, but the tag was originally removed with the comment that someone who played for the national side was notable. As WP:Athlete does not mention national sides, under the strictest interpretation, this article should go, though I personally think that anyone who has played for a national side should be considered notable. I've added a comment to that effect on the AFD. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This could be a very significant discussion because if Jalat Khan is kept, it will create a precedent whereby any player who has represented an associate, affiliate and even non-affiliate member country will meet notability criteria without having to play at major level. If that happens, then players in minor counties or grade cricket may be notable too. BlackJack | talk page 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
this guy's probably not even at A-grade standard. I know some Ugandan ODI players ran away on a tour of Australia and ended up playing in C-grade cricket in Adelaide. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The decision was delete so we can use this as a precedent. We do have to be careful of the overall notability rules, however, as these can override WP:Athlete and WP:CRIN if there is sufficient evidence of notability despite not meeting the level of competition criteria. BlackJack | talk page 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we must accept that some players who have not played "major cricket can be notable, eg. A. E. J. Collins or the players who played in the 1900 Olympics cricket match, (two of those had played first-class cricket though!), but our current guidlines should be fine. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor separating out Ashes Tests information from tour articles

I came across this response to an understandable vandalism warning. It wasn't vandalism, but it does seem to have been (unless I missed a discussion somewhere) a unilateral, undiscussed move by a single (and, surprisingly, an experienced) editor and, it seems, part of a large series of such edits.

Personally, I disagree with such a move, mostly because the separation will put the Eng v Aus articles in a different style from other tour articles where the trophy has less notability.

I've not posted to any user talks - wanted to know what you guys think, esp. people like Blackjack who've done masses of work on tour articles. I perhaps have a jaundiced view, having written what is currently (but hopefully not for long) our only FA on a tour. --Dweller (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't like this. The Tests are the central feature of these tours and to separate them out leaves you with articles that have much less coherence. Can we get him to stop and revert his previous efforts? Johnlp (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not keen on it either. And it certainly seems to be stretching things for the editor to flag it as a minor edit. I'm not very keen on the whole idea of having "Ashes" articles in addition to tour articles in any case, even when (as in 1948) the tour article isn't emasculated. It makes things less coherent, and you risk having the two articles saying incompatible things about the Tests. JH (talk page) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I've encountered this person before and have already reverted many of his edits. I thought he had given up on his Ashes articles but he has returned to them. An admin has challenged him on his talk page and I've pointed out to him that he must consult WT:CRIC to ensure that he is complying with consensus. You are all right about coherence and the danger of duplicated effort. BlackJack | talk page 21:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Further, such large cut and paste moves are a contravention of the GFDL. Contributions to Wikipedia remain the personal intellectual property of the contributor/s and must always be able to be attributed back to the author. Anyone who copies someone else's contributions without acknowledging their authorship, or otherwise without complying with the GFDL, has stolen from them in both a legal and moral sense. Moondyne 02:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
That's very interesting. Is that the main reason why each article has a visible audit trail (i.e., history)? BlackJack | talk page 05:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Certainly its one of the reasons. Moondyne 06:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I should also say, in the spirit of this thread, the above text was copied and modified from this edit by another user. Moondyne 07:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I am the editor in question in relation to the separation of these articles. As I responded directly to BlackJack's personal criticism ("he is an extremely clumsy editor and makes loads of mistakes" - example??) of my edits here, the purpose of what I was attempting simply lies in the fact that it is my opinion that The Ashes, as the most historic and probably important series in test match cricket has notoriety in its own right, and therefore Ashes series should have their own articles. Nobody had written articles related to most of the series, and many of the ones that have been done are short stubs, so I felt it was a good opportunity to create longer articles. I personally don't think that tour matches between the Duke of Arundel's XI and the squad players who would otherwise not feature in the test series, are worthy of inclusion in the same article as the Ashes tests, but do deserve a mention in the tour page. As it seems to be the case that the general consensus goes against my opinion, I will bow to the democratic power of Wikipedia, and give up on creating separate articles for the Ashes series. BlackJack was of course, quite right that Wikipedia is a shared resource, and I should have sought prior consensus opinion from WT:CRIC - I stand corrected, and apologise. Robert Fleming (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I gave my views on the matter here and actually stood up for Robert a fair bit, as I don't think he deserves all of the flak he has copped, and he is willing to admit to mistakes in editing protocol. I will post my thoughts on the substance of the issue in the "Proposed way forward" section. Juwe (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed way forward

I think we need to propose a policy to address situations like this.

Cutting and pasting significant contributions from one article to another breaches GFDL and cannot be allowed. Even if all of the original contributors agree and are given due credit in the new article, there will be concerns about coherence between articles and reduction of the original article's quality. I think we should declare such actions immediately reversible. Copying and pasting is less serious, because at least the original contributions remain in the original article, but it is also a breach of GFDL and it creates duplication.

I think development of a separate series article should not be allowed if there is already a significant series section in the tour article. There is bound to be a lack of coherence and an element of duplication. Even if the tour article does not have a significant series section, given that most are only a results summary, we will ultimately face the problems of lost coherence and duplication of effort if someone goes ahead with a spinoff.

The principle doesn't only apply to tour vis-à-vis series. It would equally apply to a player's Test career being moved into a separate article; or to a separate article about one competition that took place during a particular season; or even to articles about individual Tests independent of a series, etc.

I propose that we should state as policy on the main project page that we will revert any subset/spinoff unless the proposal has been fully discussed at WT:CRIC and consensus has been achieved. I don't think this should be applied to long-standing subsets such as the 1948 and 2005 Ashes articles because their longevity implies consensus; but I do think we should take action to revert any recent or future subsets. BlackJack | talk page 09:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to BlackJack's excellent proposal, should it be made clear that separating for example the Test matches out of a long tour article into a 'sub-article' would be allowed, provided that the main article was becoming too long? –MDCollins (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No. I cannot think of a circumstance where that would be warranted. The key information the visitor will be looking for about a tour will be its Tests (if it's a Test tour). Yes, the 1948 Australians had a particularly brilliant day against Essex, but do you think it more likely someone wants to read about the Middlesex match or Bradman's dismissal by Hollies? The solution would be to spin out a daughter article on the non internationals, not the opposite, and not even to remove that information altogether from the main article. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, my thoughts.
Firstly, this GFDL attributions issue is an interesting new (for many of us anyway) problem and must obviously be dealt with when moving blocks of text. However, this must be a wikipedia-wide problem, as sections of articles must constantly be being expanded into new articles, or transferred from one article to another. As such, there is clearly a simple, acceptable way to do this. Maybe someone more knowledgable than me could point it out?
I agree with BlackJack that matters of when spinoff pages are allowed to occur should be part of the project's policy, and that potential expansions of articles should be discussed here first. I also think the information about the correct method of achieving it should be stated.
However, I disagree with many people that Ashes series and England-Australia tour articles (for example) shouldn't have separate pages. I agree with Robert Fleming that The Ashes "has notoriety in its own right" and that each Test series could sustain an article separate from the relevant tour article. One problem is that that this requires someone to create such articles and bring them up to standard. We apparently had one editor willing to do this (or a significant amout of this) in Robert, but maybe he is no longer keen on it. All this presumes that the consensus is for such a scheme, which it appears might not be the case.
Although I favour having separate articles for Ashes series and Ashes tours, I don't advocate the situation we have now with the 2006-07 tour merely having a link to 2006-07 Ashes series when it comes to the section about the Test matches. I think that the scorecards for the Test matches, along with a brief summary (such as the summaries for the other tour matches) should still be included in the tour article, along with whatever other paragraphs the page needs to put the Test series (and other matches) in context.
I'm not actually sure that myself, MDCollins and Dweller are that far apart on this issue. I don't know exactly what MDCollins had envisioned for a Test match "sub-article", but I think something like the 2006-07 Ashes series page would be appropriate. In this way, it is not that there would be more information about the tour matches than the Tests on the tour page. There would be concise summaries of all matches on the tour page as well as contextual paragraphs that make clear what the main purpose of the tour was (ie the Tests and to a lesser extent the ODIs). There would also be a link to the Test series page (much like there is now on the 2006-07 tour page), where the Tests would be described in greater depth. Juwe (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Juwe - to clarify, your example of the 2006-07 Ashes series article is exactly what I was thinking really. (I haven't read the article), but if all of that information was moved (back) to the 2006-07 Tour of Australia page (or whatever), it would overwhelm that article. In that respect, I was thinking that the Test series (not an individual match) on a separate article may be advantageous. A parent 'tour' article could include the full squads and touring parties, for both the Tests/ODIs etc, and any detailed description of the Test series/ODI series could potentially be seperated (leaving a summary, and a Main article: 2006-07 Ashes series, of course) into a new page. I don't propose that this happens for every tour/article/series by any means - only when length becomes an issue, and possibly with any other really major series. Also, I am not saying that a near ball-by-ball account of every Test between Bangladesh and Pakistan is necessary either! I have often wondered whether a day-by-day account is required, but that isn't the issue here. In short, cutting/copying and pasting is a no-no, but I would support some arguments for article splitting. Hope this helps clarify my position.–MDCollins (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This is essentially what I had originally set about trying to achieve. Albeit, without consulting WT:CRIC as I should have done, and have acknowledged. It was my thought that the Ashes series should have a page focused just on the test matches, with detailed day by day analysis of the match, as I have done with the 1989 Ashes series, and each of the tour pages should have paragraph length analysis of both the tests and tour matches, as is the case with Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Notable events have occurred in tour matches, therefore it should be worth writing about them, but if you are a test match cricket fan, you might search for the 1981 Ashes series, and be confused as to why when you have searched for the Ashes, there is very little information about Ian Botham's incredible reversal at Headingley, but you do get to read about the Australians stopping off in Sri Lanka, which, in personal opinion, has nothing to do with the Ashes.

Also, for what it is worth, on BlackJack's page, I found a link to this: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use the most easily recognized name, where it says: "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers", and as I wrote in response to him: "It should probably also be noted that in common language, cricket fans usually refer to the '1981 Ashes series' or '1981 Ashes', not the 'Australian cricket team in England in 1981'. In fact I think I am fairly certain that it was in searching for a detail about the 1989 Ashes series that I discovered the coverage of the topic was so poor, and endeavoured to create pages for each of the Ashes series. Robert Fleming (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Australian cricket team in England in 1981 is the name of the tour, not of the series. You seem to be confusing series with tour; the series is only one part of a tour. Furthermore, we have to use a title that is meaningful to people who are unfamiliar with the topic. If we simply called it "1981 Aussies in England", it could mean anything. Indeed, some people might be confused by "1981 Ashes" and expect to read a rugby league article. BlackJack | talk page 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not confusing the series with the tour, merely arguing that both should co-exist. As I was attempting to create. You seem to object to having a separate page for the Ashes series, which I feel have more notoriety than the rest of the tour. I am arguing for having both articles. '1981 Ashes series' and 'Australian cricket team in England in 1981'. As I stated above, I feel we should have a detailed page with day by day coverage of the happenings of each test, uncluttered by non-test one day and tour match information, as I did with the 1989 Ashes series. Then in aditition there should be the tour article, titled as they currently are, which as you say, will help people unfamiliar with the topic, but also provide obvious links to the Ashes articles, so if they want to read more than a single paragraph about a test match during the series, they may do so by looking at the Ashes series page, instead of the tour page. You are quite right that if we said '1981 Aussies in England' it could mean anything, but the term "Ashes" is synonymous with the cricket series, even to non-cricket fans. Although there is apparently a rugby series which also uses the name it is much less well known - I am an Australian, albeit from Aussie Rules territory, but I had never heard of the rugby Ashes until I moved here to the UK. However even non-cricket fans usually know there is 'something' called the Ashes that Australia and England play for. Even my Italian girlfriend knows what the Ashes are, even though she knows nothing about cricket, simply because she moved here in 2005 and it is so important is impossible not to know what it is. She actually hates cricket, but quite enjoyed the Ashes due to the fervour it created in the public in general. I am sure if someone knows enough to be looking in the first place, they are more likely to look for the common language name - ie Ashes series, and if they are unfamiliar with the topic, it is highly unlikely they will even know that cricket teams do tours, to look for that title. I just can't see what the argument is against having an article about the tour which has match boxes and single paragraphs about each test, tour match and one-day game played, and then having an Ashes series page which has much more detailed analysis of just the test matches?? Robert Fleming (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the general consensus of people interested in this debate in my following proposal. I will take one of the series and tours that has poor coverage at present, say the 1977 series and tour. And write two separate articles 1977 Ashes series, and an expanded Australian cricket team in England in 1977 - which at the moment is a short stub. If people think the combination works, we will retain the system, if the general consensus is unhappy with the result, we will merge the two, and go with just having tour articles. If the Wikiproject Cricket community is happy with the way the two compliment each other, I will continue to write detailed Ashes articles, alongside the existing tour articles. I think the current situation with the 1948 Ashes series, and Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is pretty much the ideal, IMHO. Robert Fleming (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly approve of this idea (although I'm sure everyone already knew this). Juwe (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You've made some good points, and have pretty much talked me round. JH (talk page) 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is consensus but there is also WP:BOLD. Go for it and lets see what people think. My only problem is cutting, really. You cannot decimate an established article in order to create a new one. But if you follow the 1948 or 2005 model, then, fine. BlackJack | talk page 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be slow getting back into this: I'm (mostly) away. I remain to be convinced. If the tour articles are to have coherence, then they have to include the Tests, since they are an integral part of any tour. I have to say that the only argument I've seen in all of this that gives me pause is the argument about length of articles, which is a real problem in a few cases. In these limited cases, splitting on the lines you suggest may indeed be the best option. But even with these, though you might get away with mentioning the Tests or the ODIs in passing in the tour article with a link across to an article about the Tests, I don't think you should omit them entirely. And don't forget too that performances (and injuries) in "other matches" influence team selection for major matches. I'll look at what you do with interest (and hopefully without prejudice!) Johnlp (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

1948 Ashes series

In light of the above thread, I think it's time to bite the bullet on a thread I've long wanted to post. I propose we merge this information to the tour article and make this a redirect.

I now stand back and await a barrage of rotten eggs. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, so long as we don't lose any information in the process. JH (talk page) 17:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I agree in principle, but actually there is nothing wrong with this particular article which was developed independently of the tour article. BlackJack | talk page 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, why? In any case the article will get too big eventually and some forking scheme has to exist. If people want a sequential thing, we can do a chronological fork and break it into months like Australian cricket team in England in May 1948, see 2008 Tour de France they just break the stage reports into two halves. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the old days, tour matches were taken seriously, and in this case there were 34 of them, with some "festival matches" such as Leveson-Gwer's and also the MCC matches using a virtual Test XI, whereas nowadays, tour matches are just glorified nets and nobody cares if people lose or win. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
And in the tour matches, they usually sent Miller and Lindwall in at full tilt against the likes of Yorkshire and MCC to try and demoralise Hutton in the warm-up games, and the same with the batsmen against Surrey to try and intimidate Lock and Laker. Although nowadays, the tour match usually allows 11 bowlers and 11 batmsne and eefectivley lets 13 guys have a hit-out. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that the 1948 pages are a good example of why separate articles for Ashes series and tours are generally desirable for all Ashes series and tours. The structure and level of detail in both articles seems about right and each page is a sensible length. The difficulty is that it would take considerable effort to bring every Ashes series/tour to the level of the 1948 articles. However, I don't see a problem with this being done gradually, one series/tour at a time, and/or with the creation of (initially) far less detailed spin-off articles. After all, this is how progress tends to happen on wikipedia. Of course, this shouldn't necessarily be limited to Ashes articles, but it would obviously take even more work to make separate series/tour articles for India-Pakistan series, Australia-West Indies series etc.
Blnguyen's point about tour matches being more important in the olden days is certainly valid. However, ODI series/tournaments are often part of modern tours, so this somewhat balances the lack of meaningful first-class tour matches. I don't think it is a good idea to split tours up by the month, as I think it is far more natural to create separate articles for Test series and even ODI series/tournaments (see eg 2006-07 Commonwealth Bank Series). In the Tour de France example, it is natural to group all the stages together when creating "spin-off" articles, and it makes sense that the 2 "spin-off" articles are simply "Stage 1 to Stage 11" and "Stage 12 to Stage 21". For cricket tours, some matches are of a fundamentally different character to other matches, and so merely grouping matches according to their chronological order makes less sense than grouping all the Tests together. Juwe (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Nowadays, they keep the ODI and Test tours separate and have separate teams, thank goodness. So we can just break it in two if it gets too big and the two parts are still chronological. In the 1980s and 1990s they had the same guys playing ODIs and Tests and usually played 1-2 Tests separated by 2-3 ODIs and that makes it annoying when writing a paragraph about a certain player in a certain season...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see that a split might become necessary due to size of the tour article. I would not wish to merge the 2005 articles again, for example. If a split is necessary, I agree with Juwe that it is best to do it by match type rather than by month (e.g., what do you do with a game that starts on 30 May and finishes on 2 June?). The only concern I have is that we must guard against the problems highlighted in the previous thread. Obviously if someone decides to create 1968 Ashes from scratch without touching the summary in the tour article, then fine, but if it involves taking stuff out of a tour article we need a consensus on it.
At some point, we may need a rethink on "tours" in the LOI era. Maybe we should define a tour according to number of non-internationals played. Food for thought. BlackJack | talk page 08:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
My article's safe... :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

One point worth mentioning is that at present, even when thee isn't a separate "Ashes" article, many of the tour articles lack the Ashes template and The Ashes category, which I think that they ought to have. JH (talk page) 09:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos of cricketers

Hi, After using Stepshep's bot's help a whole bunch of cricketer's articles have been included in the Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople

I was wondering if anybody knew a way to search for a large number of photos online in one go.

ajoy (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

flickr? but many are not usable :( SGGH speak! 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To do

The following are cricketers who have made their first-class debuts in England this season but as yet do not have Wikipedia articles (click on the player's number for a link to their Cricketarchive profile):

If you find this list useful, please feel free to knock off an article if you so wish. If you'd prefer I kept this list elsewhere, please say so - it's of no particular worry to me, there are several other places I can keep it safe. Bobo. 03:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but ...

... I think this person is asking for help, if anone can. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Advertising?

An IP address is presently editing county club articles with limited overs kit colours and details of the team's sponsors. Does this breach WP:ADS?

See recent edits to Derbyshire County Cricket Club‎, Essex County Cricket Club‎, Leicestershire County Cricket Club‎, Warwickshire County Cricket Club‎ for examples. BlackJack | talk page 08:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the Derbyshire article, I don't think that a brief mention of their shirt sponsor in a lengthy article contravenes WP:ADS. However it's hard to believe that the identity of the shirt sponsor is notable enough to be worth mentioning, especially as no doube the sponsor will have changed in a year or two. JH (talk page) 18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's more the point. Indeed, the one day colours might change just as frequently, especially if the new sponsor insists. BlackJack | talk page 08:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor Counties: Isle of Wight

According to this page from the Southern Premier League as well as several local sources, the Isle of Wight has been a Minor County for a year now. Is the reason it is not shown at Minor counties of English cricket that it doesn't yet have a CCC First XI? Is there any other reason it is not shown? Are these valid reasons, or should it have been added to the list in 2007? --Peeky44 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that, because it is not yet playing in either the Minor Counties Championship or in the KO competition, nobody had noticed that the club had come into existence. I see that the article that you linked to says "The Island has tentative plans to enter the Minor Counties CA Trophy competition in a few seasons time." It would seem appropriate to add it to the list, with a note pointing out that it is not yet competing in the two major Minor County compertitions. The present structure of the article makes in non-obvious where you could add the IOW, though, as presumably they won't yet have been allocated to either the Eastern or the Western Division, as that's an artifact of the Championship. JH (talk page) 18:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, this page [2] at the ECB's site, which claims to list the websites of all the Minor Counties doesn't include them. Maybe they don't have a website yet. JH (talk page) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I've found them icluded here: [3]. However it shows them listed amongst the County Boards but not amongst the Minor Counties. Perhaps you should check with the Minor Counties Cricket Association concerning precisely what their current status is. JH (talk page) 18:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should include the team in the MC category unless it actually takes part in the MC championship. Are we sure the IoW merits a county club as I always understood it to be part of Hampshire? It would be "minor" in terms of being a parish team, albeit a large parish. BlackJack | talk page 08:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It used to be part of Hampshire until the late 19th century (I think). It retained its status as a separate county in the local government restructure in the 1970s. It does share some services with Hampshire from what I recall though. It is the smallest county in England, but only at high tide. At low tide, it's bigger than Rutland, at least if QI is to be believed. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Agnew

Aggers is busy shooting himself in the foot by chatting about his article on the wireless - have an eye on it, it's getting a bit silly over there. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given up, my browser can't load fast enough to revert the vandalism. I think we should ask for semi-protect for an hour until people get bored. Nev1 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It's been semi-protected. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Aggers appeared to be the main target, but the Marks and Mann pages have been edited to a less extent. I suggest editors keep an eye on these pages (and any other TMS commentators) until the end of the day's play.
And can someone send TMS a link to WP:BEANS. Nev1 (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the net result of the changes since the incident is this, what exactly prompted the problem - was he complaining about lack of accuracy? In which case, I guess it's still inacurate in his eyes. It's not a brilliant article, but it's not appalling. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't hear the original radio commentary either. Can someone describe what it was about? Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Aggers had looked up Vic Marks and pointed out this (since removed) dubious bit of info to him on air. Aggers was a bit concerned that anyone can go and there and write anything they like. That triggered a bit of vandalism to Jonathan Agnew (something about inventing the pot noodle) which also got read out on air, more complaint from Agnew and much more vandalising!

Indian national cricket captains at FLRC

Hello, I nominated the Indian national cricket captains at WP:FLRC. I believe some changes are needed in order to keep this list featured. Please, respond here. Thank you.--Crzycheetah 07:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

For purposes of disclosure..

Please see this diff and this Cricket Archive link and if you think I've gone wrong somewhere or overlooked something I shouldn't have, please revert back to the previous version. Bobo. 04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A check shows that Cricinfo have him as "Danny": [4] But never previously having heard of him, I can't say whether he's more usually referred to as "Danny" or "Daniel". JH (talk page) 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I never realized that, J, thank you for checking. Revert if you so wish, but thank you for finding this out for me. Bobo. 23:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability guideline for clubs

WP:CRIN talks about individuals but is silent on the thousands and thousands of cricket clubs and associations. WP:ORG sets a high bar and is fairly clear but I wonder if some specific exceptions need to apply for cricket. Moondyne 10:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting because I frequently move local club articles out of category:Cricket into one of the club categories (and, lo and behold, there's another one there right now!). I have AfDed and speedied a couple of these before now because they seem to be nonsense or not part of any organised competition. But most of them are bona fide and just need to be categorised right. In WP:ORG there is this criterion:
  • Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found (my italics)
I would interpret this to mean that if the team is just a group of lads on one street playing against the next street then it is not notable. But if it is a local team that belongs to an established competition and plays regularly against teams from other localities, as in village cricket, then I think it passes because the scope is regional rather than local.
I agree that WP:CRIN needs to say something about clubs. BlackJack | talk page 08:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll make a note to change WP:CRIN per above unless anyone has something else to add? BlackJack | talk page 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Club categories

Following on from the clubs thread above, I notice that Category:English club cricket teams includes some but not all county clubs (including Sussex and Yorkshire) and several former first-class clubs like Hambledon and Slindon. All of these are in more specific categories like category:First-class cricket teams and category:Former first-class cricket clubs.

I also notice that category:Minor counties cricket is not part of the category:Cricket teams structure, which is surely wrong. It is under the cricket in England structure.

Should the English club teams category be reserved for clubs that have never been first-class and have not been in the Minor Counties Championship; or should it include all English clubs? At the moment, we are very inconsistent.

Any other ideas and suggestions? BlackJack | talk page 08:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that conventionally we distinguish "club cricket" from "county cricker". By that convention, I think MCC - even though playing some f-c cricket - would be a "club cricket team" whilst Sussex (or a Minor County) would not. I suspecr that the person who put most of the counties under the "club cricket teams" wasn't aware of that distinction. I think that Hambledon would count as a club team, even though on occasion it was effectively a Hampshire XI. I'm not sure how the university teams should be categorised. JH (talk page) 09:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The university teams are actually constituted as clubs, I believe, so would this qualify them? Or are they informal clubs? BlackJack | talk page 15:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll make a note to address this per JH unless anyone else has something to add? BlackJack | talk page 04:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:MCC cricketers

I may well have missed a discussion about this, and if so please feel free to let me know, but I'm bothered by User:BlackJack's decision to remove the above category from people like Doug Padgett. I know I agreed with his reasoning about this subject couple of years ago, but I have changed my mind since then. I really don't see how we can have a category which contains only some of the people who qualify for it, and where inclusion is based on a necessarily subjective opinion of who was and who was not a "significant" MCC player. I really do think we need to include every MCC player or not have the category at all. Loganberry (Talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a practical thing, really. I don't see how we can allocate this category to every single player who has represented an MCC XI and we should limit it to those who are primarily (e.g., Beauclerk) or significantly (e.g., Lord Harris) associated with the club. Many of the early players appeared for MCC only so they must qualify.
By contrast, Tony Nicholson (to quote his article): "Of 403 matches at first-class and List A level, only one — a game for MCC against Scotland in 1963 — was not for Yorkshire". If he is an MCC cricketer then so are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of others and who is going to trawl through 222 seasons of MCC matches to allocate this category to all of them? The other one I amended was Doug Padgett and I see now that he went on a non-England MCC tour to New Zealand in 1960-61. This is a significant involvement so I agree that he should be in the category and I've reinstated him (by the way, the article was incorrect re that tour and misleading). BlackJack | talk page 06:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Padgett, as I've only been incidentally involved in editing that article. With Nicholson, where I did edit significantly, I do seem to remember pausing before adding him to the MCC category... but then what about (for example) Category:English cricketers? That's an absolutely enormous category of many thousands of players, far larger than the MCC one and unlikely ever to be "complete", yet we don't make any distinction between those who played one unmemorable and unimportant f-c game for Worcestershire in 1919 and those who captained England for years. If we say that a "full" MCC cricketers category would be unmanageable because of its size, then so would a "full" English cricketers category. Loganberry (Talk) 11:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion - only use the category for players who have played an arbitary (10/20/50) matches for the MCC?–MDCollins (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
That sounds an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about MCC history to be able to say whether it would be workable. My point really is that I think inclusion in any particular category needs to be based on objective criteria; I'm uneasy about inclusion according to whether a player is significant, since that is always going to be subjective, even when assessed by editors much more knowledgeable than me. It's easy with the pre-WW2 Worcs cricketers I'm working through - if they played a first-class game (as defined on CricketArchive), they're in. Loganberry (Talk) 11:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It comes down to a debate about the Human brothers: Roger, the Worcestershire cricketer, played only once for MCC; John, who played for Middlesex, managed 30 appearances. I recall that Jack was involved in a previous discussion about John Human which ended with the category being retained for him not just because of the number of appearances, but more because they constituted about a quarter of his total first-class appearances. I don't recall any discussion about Roger Human, but he would clearly fail if we used "a significant proportion of his appearances" as the criterion for inclusion in this category. How to determine "significant proportion" is of course, a further problem. Johnlp (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
There are two problems for me, one being the practicality of identifying everyone who made an appearance, which is much more difficult than establishing nationality. If we agree that it will be impossible to include everyone, then the second problem is a case like Tony Nicholson who is forever associated with his county but did make one guest appearance for an MCC XI.
Realistically, I suppose that all we can do is leave it to the discretion of each editor. As long as the player did definitely represent MCC, then the editor will include him if he wishes. It's one of those scenarios where idealism will fail and arbitrary rules will fail.
That being so, shall I restore Tony Nicholson to MCC? By the way, he was one of the best players never to play Test cricket. BlackJack | talk page 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a very fair comment, and I have to agree that sooner or later editorial discretion will inevitably come into play. And of course we don't have a category for every first-class side, even significant ones such as the Gentlemen and Players, let alone "Right-Handed" and the like. I'd be happy to go along with your suggestion, though I recognise that it's somewhat easier for me to get hard information given that no Worcestershire f-c player made his first-class debut before the late 19th century. (I think William Greenstock, who played for Cambridge in 1886, was the earliest f-c debutant of Worcs f-c players.) Loganberry (Talk) 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question concerning club notability

Generally speaking Los Angeles Krickets would not fit into the notability guidelines but the article refers to a large amount of press coverage in the 90s so perhaps it could pass. If it is notable the text would need some serious work on it. --Roisterer (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's the team I'm thinking of, then they had a lot of coverage in the British media when they toured over here a couple of years ago, and I think would be notable. However at present the article reads far too much like an adulatory press release. JH (talk page) 09:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fred Allen (cricketer)

The above article has been nominated for speedy deletion. I have just created it and would like some help to prevent it being deleted as it is notable. Thanks. 02blythed (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

He is notable, but to be honest, the article needs much more work to make his notability clear. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is only little info due to him only playing one match. So there is nothing really I can add. 02blythed (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There's 31 matches in all on his CricketArchive record, surely you can write something other than "Fred Allen was a List A cricketer"? Andrew nixon (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You should follow the advice given on the article's talk page. The text of the article is more important than the infobox. Birth details must be in the text if known; infoboxes are optional. BlackJack | talk page 06:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded the article slightly, It's only 10am and I'm still half-asleep so it might need a small amount of running through - and others are much better at expanding articles than myself - so see what you think. Bobo. 08:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go, added more info about the Minor Counties etc. Shouldn't be under any threat now. –MDCollins (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback above and the expansion of the article. What I will do is that I will add the teams he played for and the number of games he played for each team. I will also add the date of birth and death. I hope that this means that it will prevent future articles from being deleted. Thanks again. 02blythed (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Page (MCC cricketer)

Another attempt at speedy delete. The player made two first-class appearances. Please follow the link to the AfD page and have your say. Thanks. BlackJack | talk page 15:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who contributed. The guy graciously withdrew his nomination, for which both Dweller and I have thanked him. BlackJack | talk page 16:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Donald Bradman

Just to let you all know that I'm in the process of nominating Bradman for Main Page on his 100th birthday, later this month. Under the new points system, it's a decent bet for approval, but Raul has his own criteria and it's not a certainty. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be a nice touch if it could be featured on the centenary. Good luck. BlackJack | talk page 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Good one - this also sprung to mind. Shame you didn't go for this Monday past (when he was 99.94 years old...): No duck on the menu...! –MDCollins (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I can just imagine all the respondents at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests scratching their heads over how many bleeding points that would be worth, lol. --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

On player notability

Hello! I was performing New Page Patrol when I stumbled upon a brace of articles about cricket players. Examining them, I found them to be lacking significant content, and so flagged them for speedy delete. The author did { hangon } and referenced me to your organization.

I see the criterion posted on the project page, specifically, "has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire". The two players in question, Matthew Allin and David Allison, both meet this criteria, just. That said, there's no notability for these players on a Wikipedia level in my opinion, and I think this part of your notability guideline comes in to play:

"Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion."

The author was able to provide aggregated statistics for these players, and a DOB/DOD, but that's it. My contention is that this doesn't warrant an article. I had suggested to the author that there be articles created for the clubs, with lists of players by year, rather than these not-even-stub articles. An admin deleted the articles, rendering our discussion moot as far as they were concerned, but there is still the larger question. Establishing a better notability criterion, OR going with club player lists will keep your members from wasting their time creating articles that only end up deleted within the hour. -- Forridean (T/C) 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

hello, I have been discussing the guidelines with a fellow editor that put two articles i created up for speedy deletion. The editor agrees that the articles do at present follow the notablity guidelines put feels that they should change. You may already be aware that one of my articles also a few days ago was put up for deletion and I was told to expand the article more which I did. The articles though were only a few sentances long though. This editor will express his/her view on the subject stating why he/she feels they should be changed.
I believe that the guidelines should not change. First class and list A cricket players are all professionals and follows the WP:athlete criteria. The ones in question only played a few games so little info could be said about them in the first place. If the guidelines are changed then this may mean that footballers, baseball players etc that only played a few games would also not be notable and therefore might well be deleted too. I believe that the criteria is perfecly fine. The articles that were put up for deletion were referenced etc so this was no issue.
I look forward to hearing your opinions on the subject. 02blythed (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Careful of WP:WAX / WP:ALLORNOTHING. I can see having articles about players who were in notorious matches, who achieved some record or recognition, but a whole article devoted to parroting statistics for players who only saw play in 2 matches seems excessive. And I'm an inclusionist! -- Forridean (T/C) 05:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I would remind you that this is an encyclopaedia and therefore it is meant to provide encyclopaedic coverage. The aim of the cricket project is to provide an article about every player who has taken part in major cricket, just as the aim of the football project is to write about everyone who has played major football. Although it is an ideal, any reader who is interested in a particular cricketer should be able to look him up on here and find out something about him.
If an article has no references then I agree it should be strongly challenged and deleted if the sources are not forthcoming. I agree that the stub should say more than "he was a first-class cricketer" and it must at least say who he played for and when.
Your "contention is that this doesn't warrant an article" is out of order as far as I'm concerned. You should read WP:STUB and understand that short articles with scope for expansion are a necessary facet of Wikipedia.
I will say to you what I say to all "deletionists": write to WT:CRIC first before you start slapping deletion tags on things. You will find that if an article is inadequate or dubious, we will deal with it (see this page and our archives for numerous examples). BlackJack | talk page 05:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
There's no 'slapping' going on here. When I do NPP and find an article with no content, I always search several sources to make sure that the article is indeed unable to be improved. That is the only time I feel a speedy delete is warranted. In both of these cases, I was able not able to find a single reference to these players, beyond the statistics accrued after playing two matches that were listed on one site. As you can see by my discussion here, I am certainly willing to explore the topic further rather than carpet bombing the articles with SD tags. I truly felt that these articles had no context or possibility of expansion, hence they don't qualify as stubs. It is these articles that I speak of here. Creating tabular data under articles for the clubs seems like a better way to handle large numbers of players with little information about them beyond statistical data, and would still allow a seeker to find them on Wikipedia. A player with more significance and potential for content could still have a dedicated article. -- Forridean (T/C) 05:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of players, particularly older ones, for whom there is little or no information easily accessible online but for whom there is information in (for example) county yearbooks, which would be a solid source. The history of Worcestershire County Cricket Club, my own main area of interest, is fairly well recorded, and I wouldn't be able to say with any confidence that any Worcs player's article had no potential for improvement. For example, if a player appeared in one match only, there might have been a reason (illness, employment etc) why that was, and that might have appeared in a county yearbook or in Wisden. No editor has included it yet, but there is a fairly high probability that such information does exist in a reliable and verifiable source. Loganberry (Talk) 11:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Plus, even though they have only played one major match, there could be information to be found on their minor career. 11:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew nixon (talk • contribs)

We have a problem here in that the two articles have already gone so can we be given an insight into what the content was? If David Allison is the man who played for OUCC in 1970 then he was a first-class player who should have an article as a great deal could be said about his career in that one season. The other player admittedly is marginal and "just qualifies" under the terms of WP:Athlete and WP:CRIN.

I think your point about creating a list of players in a club or other article has some merit because I've taken that approach myself in List of early English cricketers to 1786 where you can see who have articles and who do not. It is certainly worth considering and we'll see what other project members think. BlackJack | talk page 05:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's simple to my way of thinking. Notability is conferred by having played a sport at the highest level. That's not a WP:CRIC issue, it's WP:ATHLETE. Playing one solitary major match is automatic notability. Lack of further information is not a problem - we're not going to run out of pages and who's to say that definitely nothing futher can be added to those stubs. Cricket historians are working all round the world every day of the year and new documents and information are unearthed. So, in summary, they're notable, there's no harm to the Project in them existing and they can develop. Which way's DRV? (NB If they were speedied, it was an incorrect action, as they at least contained notability claims. That an admin failed to recognise them as claims is understandable) --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. While I do have some reservations about including someone who played in only one major match, say, without success, if one doesn't draw the line where we have it currently then it's hard to see where it could be drawn with any objectivity. JH (talk page) 09:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope nobody minds, but per Dweller and Blackjack's comments, and continually established notability criteria, I have reinstated Matthew Allin, with the same infobox but with moderately revised content. Bobo. 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's okay but I've added the England-cricket-bio-stub just to make clear that the article can be expanded; and, perhaps more importantly, I've added the WP:CRIC rating template to the talk page and I recommend that this is always added to make clear that the article belongs to this project.
Are you planning to reinstate David Allison too and is he the OUCC player from 1970? BlackJack | talk page 18:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. As for David Allison, yes, it is this player, Cricket Archive ID 27461, that the deleted article refers to.
I have neglected adding the templates to the talk page recently - I will try and make sure I do so in future, thank you BlackJack. Bobo. 18:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I've rewritten David Allison. Please revise and add more information if possible. Bobo. 19:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


Allison played in SIX first-class matches. How can he not be notable? I can understand the guy Forridean having doubts if the original article was just a sentence or two, but the admin who implemented the speedy delete needs to study WP:Athlete. I don't know who he is. BlackJack | talk page 19:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a strict interpretation of WP:Athlete could lead to a player's notability being questioned on the grounds that the university teams are amateur rather than professional. However I don't think it would be satisfactory to argue on those grounds that some f-c matches are less f-c than others. JH (talk page) 19:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, because point 2 in WP:ATHLETE ratifies "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". If an amateur team or player competes in first-class cricket they are competing at the highest level. Hence, CB Fry and OUCC and that penniless amateur WG pass muster. BlackJack | talk page 19:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to add, The David Allen article was the second that I had came across while doing new page patrol, and figured it to be in a matching pair with the first. Both articles has no content at all beyond the statistics in the info box. So, I did not research it as thoroughly as I had the first. By that time, I was already discussing it with 02blythed, and shortly after that an admin removed the articles all together (despite the hangon tags, too). At any rate, it appears that this discussion was fruitful, and I think a template to identify the pages as part of this project is an excellent idea.
I saw the comment 'we're not going to run out of pages'... heh. True, but that isn't really the issue. My suggestion that you folks use a different presentation of this information isn't rooted in a desire to conserve pages, but a desire to see each article be part of a cohesive presentation of information. These little articles end up as thousands of noodles in a plate of spaghetti. Switching to tabulated stats for players, and expanding an article for them when a full article can be written is the better way. This simplifies finding the data, viewing the data, and editing the data.
At any rate, no objections to the restoration of the articles, but I still strongly suggest a different approach -- Forridean (T/C) 06:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I wish to know how I should write the articles in the future. The problem is that I am creating artilces with few First class/ List A matches. I have already created all the bangladeshi cricketers that have ever palyed first class/ list A cricket as of the summer 2007. I did this to try and broaden our horizons and not forget the thousands of cricketers with few appearences that are still very important to wikipedia. I believed that if it was not for me and nick mallory they would never be created. This is what I am trying to do with English cricketers. I hope the above does not sound arrogant or bad in any way, i do not mean to be. I would like to have a possible template or such or all the info that needs to be added so articles will not be speedy deleted or deleted in general. I will now add the WP cricket tag on the talk page as suggested above. Thoughts greatly welcomed. Thanks. 02blythed (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, there is a lot you can write on a player who has played even one major match. Write about how he did in the match, for example, did he take any wickets of famous players? Are there any minor matches on his CricketArchive record. Is there an obituary in Wisden (search on cricinfo) that reveals anything interesting he did outside of cricket? There should be no player who you could only write one line on, and a very small minority who you'd only have one paragraph on. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_48&oldid=1146664846"