Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65→Archive 70

Books by Richard Whitington

Has anyone read many of these. I just read his one on O'Reilly and about 50% of it was off topic or tangential mumblings, or borderline autobiography instead of the main topic. He also doest check his years correctly, sometimes writing down the year of a certain tour incorrectly. Is this normal? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Short answer is "yes". Long answer is "yes, he has a very esoteric style that runs to strange tangents, literary allusions and casual disregard for accurate stats".

61.68.147.221 (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read Test Cricket in Australia 1877-1974. Informative match reports, but apparently it has several errors where he took stuff from news reports without cross-checking. Cricket Crossfire too if he had collaborated with Miller on it. Tintin 14:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Bodyline Umpire was better on the focus as the title probably automatically constrained him from freeform soapboxing YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Laurie Nash - heading for GA

I was wondering if people could take a look at Laurie Nash and see what more needs to be done for it to be at Good Article status. I's also be interested to hear from anyone with no knowledge of Australian rules football to see if I have made the football related sections understandable to laymen. Cheers. --Roisterer (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs a bit of a copy edit in terms of prose. There are quite a few 1-2 sentence paragraphs in the prose and the lead, and bullet-point like sentences which don't flow into each other as well as they might in places, which make the article read quite staccato-like - but the references and coverage all look good. SGGH ping! 14:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Instead of saying matches "in Launceston" you should probably mention that the matches were played at the "NTCA Ground in Launceston". Also mention that matches in Hobart were at the TCA Ground (Domain) - I assume that's where they were played. As some readers will think the Hobart matches were played at Bellerive Oval. Many Australian's wouldn't have heard of the NTCA Ground and will assume Launceston matches were played at York Park. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Did he ever return to Tasmania - Launceston, After his sporting career? Aaroncrick (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Nash was a regular visitor to Tasmania over the years; his wife's family was there and he caught up with friends like Ted Pickett often. Thanks for feedback, everyone. --Roisterer (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New FAC Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ernie_Toshack_with_the_Australian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1948/archive1

Up and running YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a few quick issues and before waiting for a response there is already an oppose?... Groan... Aaroncrick (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2-0, defused the oppose YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ICC Champions Trophy

It says for in the table for 2002, Sri lanka won and India were runners up. Can anyone fix this? Aaroncrick (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Better? Not perfect I know... — AMBerry (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Is that all you had to do? Thanks... Tables annoy me also seem more complicated than they are (well at least on some occasions) :) Aaroncrick (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New FAC Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Neil Harvey_with_the_Australian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1948/archive1

Up and running YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Redlinked FC/List A etc cricketers

At the start of 2006, when not all Test and ODI players had an article yet, there was a chart with the % of Test/ODI palyers from each country created, which isn't needed anymore. Can anyone compile the stats for respective FC teams? I think for one English county Loganberry created all of them, but in some other places it might be sparse. Is there an easy way of getting a listsing of all teh players for a certain team? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Bobo192 has for a long time had his User:Bobo192/first-class players lists but I'm not sure if he has updated them recently. I can't comment on individual teams but in period terms we do have all players up to 1825 which is the time (i.e., after the Lord's fire) when the records become much more certain and increasingly complete. --Jack | talk page 04:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I can easily update the lists if you like - though very few of the English teams need updating from stats of the 2007–09 seasons, during which I did not update the lists as time went along — as most of these very recent players now have articles. If there's any list of first-class, or List A players lists you want me to compile, feel free to ask me — as I have lots of time on my hands. I just never get around to doing it.
That said, I think I have all the players from all English List A teams, with the exception of Durham County Cricket Club, which I already had a list of first-class players on aforesaid page.
I'm not entirely certain how well updated the Southern Hemisphere teams' players lists are, though I took most of these from an alphabetical list directly from the Cricket Archive Player Oracle (for most Indian and Sri Lankan teams, I searched for letter A, <team name>, first-class matches only). This covers most, if not all, of the names. Of course some teams have played far fewer first-class games than others, and from that it's almost much quicker to put in a team query on the Scorecard Oracle rather than a players query on the Player oracle. Karachi Schools, for example, have played just a single first-class match.
I can take requests if you like. Any teams I haven't got in my list which you would like me to include, please tell me so, either here or on my User talk page. For teams I am yet to add to the list, please view this revision of my User page, or User:Bobo192/Pakistani teams for, well, you can guess.. Bobo. 17:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Century in both innings on first-class debut

Noor Ali has scored a century in each innings on his first-class debut for Afghanistan against Zimbabwe A in the Intercontinental Cup. Anyone know if another player has done that on debut? Andrew nixon (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Morris, Nari Contractor and Aamer Malik did it. Pretty select band. Joe Solomon got centuries in his first three first-class innings, but they were in three different matches as he didn't bat in the second innings of the first two. Johnlp (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Housekeeping matter

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Articles and five subpages are no longer being updated as WatchlistBot and its owner Ingrid appear to have retired. The list is now probably hopelessly out of date and should be deleted IMO. There's a reference to the list on the WP:CRIC page. Can an admin delete please. –Moondyne 13:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hasn't been edited since July. I'll delete it later unless someone comes here and says I should not. SGGH ping! 09:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Riot of 1879

Was the only complaint on the FAR about the referencing? I think it can be revived easily YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was always only about 1 or 2 quotes which weren't able to be sufficiently referenced. We lost a great contributor soon after which is quite sad. –Moondyne 08:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
But those two were accounted for weren't they? So I thought it was the other parts that needed reffing (and are easy) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This got me thinking that the NLA newspaper digitisation project might turn up something and sure enough there's heaps of citeable material there.[1] We probably should use this resource a lot more than we do.
Unrelated to Sydney and mentioned here only because I thought it interesting, I found an article titled THE LARGEST CRICKET SCORE IN THE WORLD which spoke of a match between the Ulster and Macquarie Clubs, played at Sydney in 1877, where Ulster made 1,238 for the loss of nine wickets. Nice. –Moondyne 13:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

100 Runs Test Cricket Partnerships by Sri Lanka

I came across this the other day. I suspect I am a little more sympathetic to these type of articles than most others here, so I thought it best to raise here for discussion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's ok, but perhaps 100 runs is a little low? I know century partnerships are worthwhile, but there are rather a lot (and would be a lot more for other countries - England stands at 876). Would double-century (or perhaps 150 partnerships ) be more restrictive? It needs a lot of tweaking, and for my money needs to be a sortable table.
That said, I'm working on a similar article for the Lord's Honours Board (centuries and 5-fors at Lord's) - not sure about extending it to other grounds, but this one has a lot of history and prestige about it. It's still in my sandbox, but, IMO, maybe a useful style example which could be applied to articles such as the above (as it is completely sortable etc). Thoughts on that article welcome too.—MDCollins (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say a Lord's honours board is notable - but the Sri Lanka partnerships one is too specific a criteria, and makes the article a collection of statistics best suited to CricInfo rather than Wikipedia, personally. SGGH ping! 09:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Having a Lords honours board article is a great idea. Nick mallory (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What would the title be? something like List of Lord's honours board performances? SGGH ping! 14:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the title yet - it'll be split into two articles (batting and bowling) as the batting one (at least) has around 200 entries to date. It'll probably be "List of Test centuries at Lord's" with redirects/disambig from "Lord's Honour's Board". I'll see when I've finished compiling the information. Then will need some brief bits of prose, and picking out the odd records/bit of analysis.—MDCollins (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Victory for England!

Yaaaahaaaaa! SGGH ping! 17:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong support :D Nev1 (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, as per WP:NPOV, Defeat for Australia! SGGH ping! 17:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The article The Ashes has been filled with too much details (not to say irrelevant ones). Can somebody have a look at this? Thanks. OrangeKnight (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
For those people who haven't noticed, I've split the info about the Ashes Tests out of Australian cricket team in England in 2009 and into 2009 Ashes series. I have also reduced the coverage of the Ashes Tests in the former article in order to comply with WP:SUMMARY, and I have added some background info about the teams' form going into the series and some stats. – PeeJay 21:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The presence of a daughter article doesn't mean that the main body has to be purged from the parent. The Tests are way more important than the other FC, especially as in the old days, they were worried about losing in the FC (and usually fielded a close to full strenght team against Yorkshire, Lancs, Surrey etc), but these days, people are allowed to use 13 players in the FC and it isn't any more important than a glorified net. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that the info had been purged from the parent article, only that the content had been reduced. I've probably gone a little over the top with the summary style, but there's no point in having identical match summaries in both the parent and the daughter. – PeeJay 07:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a better performance than 2005. We won the two tests by the skin of our teeth that time, now we've won our two tests by overwhelming margins. Then the Aussies had bad luck with Glenn McGrath's injuries, this time we lost our only world class batsman in Pietersen and Flintoff was playing on one leg. We got a draw last time at the Oval, hot favourites to hold onto our lead, this time we had to win and we won clearly. Yes the Aussies aren't the team they were but it's still an epic feat. Well done boys! Nick mallory (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats and well played England, but just to dampen down the enthusiasm, this is not half as good as the 2005 England performance. The team England beat in 2005 was indisputably the best in the world with at least 6 or 7 all-time champion players. To even come close to Australia let alone win was an outstanding achievement by that England team, superbly led by Vaughan. This Australian team, aside from Ponting, is much, much weaker across the board and its new Test ranking of No. 4 is probably a fair reflection of where it sits. This may sound like sour grapes, it is not meant to, but this series was about a mediocre England side beating a mediocre Australian side by winning the two or three sessions that mattered in two of the Tests and being a little stronger mentally. Good luck to England in the future but you will struggle to compete against the better teams like SA and Ind.. especially away from your home pitches.
For Australia, the series is a reality check after the false dawn in South Africa. Selection may have been inconsistent, but it is hard to blame the selectors when the cattle are not there. Ponting no doubt will cop it in the neck, he always seems to attract the most unfair hostile criticism, however unlike in 2005 he was not out-captained by his opposite number (Strauss may be an inspiring figure with the bat but he is not a tactical genius by any means). Both Tests were lost as a result of drastic batting collapses and Ponting can only be held responsible for his own dismissal in those episodes. The short term future for Aust. looks grim but the continuing good form of Clarke with the bat and the further development of Hilfenhaus and the under rated Siddle are two glimmers of light amongst the gloom. Again well done England and we will see you here in 2010/11 where I am sure the result will be a lot closer than 5-0! -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that England played better than in 2005. That time a lot higher proportion of the wickets were delivered through reverse swing and quality of McGrath and Warne because of the ball being controlled and moved about. In this series there were a lot of wickets from pull shots and random edges off wides (Johnson). I don't think the margins in 2005 were reflective of how badly England's bowlers rattled Australia. It was like winding back 10 years to when the bowling was a lot better. At the moment all the teams are all falling over each other and a lot of teams seem to waiting for other teams to fade away instead of improving. I wonder how SL and India will go in the next 3 years once Murali, SRT, Dravid and Laxman retire, Zaheer's hammy doesn't look reliable either; Ishant seems to have stagnated after two years like a lot of subcontinental quicks and Mendis is being worked out.... Ponting is an average captain but he isn't really any worse than anyone else given that most captains are pretty robotic and the fact that he has kept the team peaceful and didn't lose the plot like in Nagpur. On the other hand, Ponting, while not overtly silly like McGrath, does like to engage in bravado etc, maybe he thinks it is a crucial factor in success/failure but he always likes to pull this "If we play well, we will win", even at the start of 2007-08 after Warne and McGrath retired. The expectations would have only increased after the 07-08 season when Australia apparently did well against SL and India (forgetting that SL have a dreadful away record, Murali has an average of 60+ in Aus; Sanga was injured in the First Test and battered the bowlers in the second notwithstanding his toothless colleagues; As for India, Kumble was a great fighter but was a horrible and conservative captain and couldn't get anything out of the younger fiery players, and then they selected muppet players (Jaffer ahead of Sehwag, Dravid in career worst form, Gambhir injured) and just let Lee settle in there). I think if Ponting had played things down in the golden days when he had vastly superior resources then the media wouldn't have hyped it up; then again they always will although SRW was the media darling....I would say that the future is very open to whichever country can get a crop of bowlers with some flair combined with stamina/discipline....Maybe SL or RSA although Murali and Ntini will be gone soon..... The current bowling stocks in Australia are very deep with players with lots of fitness/discipline and strong fundamentals although rather placid and predictable (unless one considers Johnson's habit of getting wickets from wides to be flair). Ashley Mallett keeps on saying that Aus will drop down to WI/NZ which I think is unlikely but he did give anecdotes of computers being used to judge candidates for the cricket academy instead of natural flair/talent, and said that a lot of ppl better than Hauritz were rejected because the computer analysed the bowling speeds and trajectories and told them to go away. .... As for India, the drop-off in performance and pace after about 5 overs is very obvious.... The bowlers can't just keep on declining can they? Nor can they rely on batsmen getting about because of boredom. But for the time being I think RSA will stay on top in terms of the rankings; India just go to sleep against the weaker teams while RSA/AUS always win 3-0, SL are too weak away from home, and Australia aren't good enough at the moment; If Md Yousuf and Younis Khan dig in this summer it could end up with a 0-0 draw with both teams making 600 in every first innings. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Australia will beat Pakistan easily. Pakistan will stuggle at Bellerive Oval. It will offer more than usual this year as unusual amount of rain has caused damage to the cricket pitch during the Australian Rules season. Just a mud pile at the moment.Younis Khan looks too jumpy at the crease away from the sub-continent. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It it rains so mcuh, won't the pitch be very low and slow? England style. YK has a good record there from memory YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Strangely not. Last year it rained a bit and with a change of curator only one team in the Sheffield Shield scored more than 255 at Bellerive. The Pitch was green and fairly quick except for the ODI where it was fairly dry and slow. Although this season the Test is later. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Nah, Aussie will win 5-0 in Australia. ;) Ponting captained fairly well I thought. If Aussies won the series he would have been hero but now they lost... Aaroncrick (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My point was that it was a better performance by England this time around because the 2005 team was a lot stronger, particularly in the bowling attack which was consistently hostile back then. This time around our batsmen largely failed, our bowlers were often impotent and our best two players were either injured or absent and somehow we hung in there and won. We could go to South Africa and get stuffed but I think it's a greater feat for an ordinary team to win the Ashes than a great one. Nick mallory (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with you there, Nick. It's a greater feat to beat an unquestionably great team. That is why Vaughan's team completely overshadows Brearley's team which defeated a very average Aussie team but failed miserably whenever it met a truly great team. The 2005 team defeated an Australian team which at that time was still the greatest in the world with the one crucial difference in that Steve Waugh had just retired. His departure was the key factor in 2005 because, as one of the Aussies admitted above, Ponting is only a so-so captain while Vaughan was a great one. Although Flintoff got all the media credit for the 2005 Ashes, it was actually Vaughan who had the greatest influence (like Brearley before him). Strauss is also a so-so captain and in fact I think England should reinstate Pietersen as soon as he is fit again, because Pietersen has the flair and vision that might one day enable him to develop into a great captain like Vaughan. Strauss is never going to be a great captain: a great time-waster with a flair for causing unnecessary delays and stoppages, yes.
As for the Aussies, all things must pass. If you lose players like Waugh, Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist, you cannot expect things to continue as they have done. Everything depends on their development program now because this present team, like the one Allan Border inherited, is average by Test standards. The current rankings of Australia and England at nos 4 and 5 are accurate except that they arguably are the wrong way around. But that doesn't matter. What does matter is that South Africa, Sri Lanka and India are unquestionably the top three and neither Australia nor England is in a position to argue with that at the moment. I would think the first step for Australia is to hope that Michael Clarke is the new Allan Border and can provide the leadership needed by a new team. He should replace Ponting as captain now. But what Australia needs most of all is bowlers who are consistent and effective. Johnson on the evidence of this series is all over the place. The best bowlers are Hilfenhaus and Siddle but really they are support bowlers who should not be relied upon to produce the match-winning fivefers and sixfers that a main strike bowler should be achieving. Does Australia have a prospect like Stuart Broad, who at 23 is still a prospect?
And Australia needs a spinner. Do they have any good young ones coming through? No? Well, England has them. You will see more of Rashid before long and in his wake there are more than a few good young spinners around the counties. All in all, I'd say the future looks brighter for England than for Australia. --Jack | talk page 06:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:The Ashes

Before anyone goes off the handle about the state of Category:The Ashes, I ought to explain that I'm in the process of sorting out which articles actually go into the category. My thinking is that only one article per Ashes Test series should go into the category, preferably articles entitled YYYY Ashes series. Where YYYY Ashes series does not exist, Australian cricket team in England in YYYY or English cricket team in Australia in YYYY–YY should go in instead, and failing that, it should be the article about the cricket season in the country in which the series was played that year. Obviously there will be an exception for the 1948 Ashes series, since we have sub-articles for each of the Tests, but this system should save on a lot of clutter. – PeeJay 09:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In addittion, the Ashes template which lists all the series needs to be tinkered with, so that the black link effect works for each article. At the moment, there are YYYY Ashes and Team cricket tour of country in YYYY articles for the same series, and the template links to one or the other at a whim. It's all a bit confusing! SGGH ping! 11:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I assume you mean {{Ashes Test series}}. I have also fixed that template so that, where the articles exist, YYYY Ashes series is linked. Where YYYY Ashes series does not exist, the template links to the tour articles. – PeeJay 13:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Would it be an idea maybe to make an Ashes photo category too? I've just been skimming Flickr to find some usable ones and if anyone has an account and can ask this user to release the photos under Creative Commons that will add some colour to the articles, although other more significant days would be better. Tony2Times (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Invincivle FAs and their citations

It's just occured to me (thinking of the recent FACs for the above and their concerns) that where the articles have about 30 footnotes for this massive wad of statistical facts in the vein of [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] etc. Why not simply put all the refs in one footnote? I.e. <ref>See {{cite web|accessdate=2009-08-24}}, {{cite web|accessdate=2009-08-24}}, {{cite web|accessdate=2009-08-24}}, {{cite web|accessdate=2009-08-24}} and {{cite web|accessdate=2009-08-24}}</ref>? SGGH ping! 23:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just done the same for the first footnote of James Madison for example. SGGH ping! 23:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The thing with that is that the match citations were reused separately for the individual matches, so then they would either be reprinted twice, or all the references would link to this thing with 34 footnotes and they would have to scna up and one down for the relevant match YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

TfD: Template:Bangladeshi cricket seasons

I have listed Template:Bangladeshi cricket seasons for deletion. The reason is given here, where you may also leave your comments. – PeeJay 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The nomination has been withdrawn after I recreated the articles to which the templates link. The problem was that all the links were redirects. It is the sort of thing that should have been discussed here first as the templates are very useful but had been let down by our lack of attention to the Bangladesh and Sri Lanka seasonal summaries. --Jack | talk page 05:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cricket Ireland flag

Can anyone point be in the direction of the Cricket Ireland flag file? I'm going to add it back into the Ireland cricket team article. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It was here but has been deleted as it was listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 July 22. There's more info at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/July#Irish cricket flag. Something needs to be done to prevent this happening again. Would an OTRS ticket be appropriate? Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just for information, the Cricket Ireland flag isn't copyrighted. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I remember that being said elsewhere, but to prevent random people tagging the file for deletion it needs to be proven that it's not copyright (if possible). If there's no page that people can be pointed to, getting Cricket Ireland to send Wikipedia confirmation of copyright status via WP:OTRS might be the best thing.
Why is it always the Irish flag that gets deleted and none of the others? Nev1 (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No idea why the Irish flag keeps getting deleted - I guess with the problems with people always wanting to put the Republic of Ireland flag on pages involving the Ireland team brings attention to it. I do work with the Cricket Ireland media manager, Barry Chambers, at CricketEurope - if I can get him or someone else from CI to e-mail confirming the non-copyrighted status of the flag, will that do? If so, who is the best person to contact to cut down on the ludicrous red tape that seems to surround this issue? Andrew nixon (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
After rooting around a bit (WP:OTRS has no information for people who want actually file a ticket or whatever it's called, just for people who want to see the tickets) I think the instructions are here. It does say "Identify the owner of the copyright material", but I think if an e-mail is sent explaining it's not copyrighted it should be ok. Nev1 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the key phrase you want to get in the email from Cricket Ireland is that if they are the original source of the image, that they explicitly release it under a free license, such as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. It is not sufficient for them to say something like "you have our permission to use it on Wikipedia". (See WP:CSD#F3.) Now, I can undelete the image for fair-use on the Cricket Ireland article (only) per WP:NFCC, but if you want the image to be used in flag templates such as {{cr|IRE}}, then it must be a free image. Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FA drive on Ricky Ponting

Anyone interested? At the moment there are two people working on it, with no formal FA goal YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

KP better than Compton, May and Dexter, says Cricinfo

Stupid. And while the Aus final XI turned out fine, in the noms, they had M Waugh in there ahead of Hassett and Brett Lee better than Bill Johnston?!?!?! I'm guessing the recentist minions picked the shortlist, I can't see the Australian panel going for Lee > Johnston or ME Waugh > Hassett (The only guy to score two tons in an O'Reilly match) except maybe Jim Maxwell who picked Langer and Hayden as his openers!! At least Roebuck has sense, he picked Compton and May ahead of KP YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that Pietersen tied with Compton on the pundits' votes and edged him out on the popular vote, which I suppose was inevitable, as people always tend to have a bias towards those whom they have actually seen play. I think I would rank Pietersen ahead of May and Dexter, based on what he's achieved, but not ahead of Compton - not yet, anyway. The main ptoblem with the chosen England XI is its long tail. Having Underwood batting as high as number 8 does not inspire confidence. (Actually he should probably bat after Larwood and Trueman, but even with Larwood at eight the tail still looks long.) JH (talk page) 09:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I would not put Pietersen ahead of Compton but I think he is on a par with May and certainly better than Dexter, who was not that great a player, really. Boycott, John Edrich, Barrington, Graveney and Cowdrey were all better contemporary batsmen than Dexter. A rule of thumb definition for a "great player" might be one who excels against the highest quality opposition. Pietersen has proved that he can excel against top quality opposition, especially against Warne and McGrath in 2005. But if my definition is correct, what is Botham doing in there? Are they planning to avoid matches against the all-time West Indies XI?
I've always maintained an all-time England XI and, for what it's worth, I currently have: Grace (captain), Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Compton, Hammond, Ames, Rhodes, Larwood, Trueman, Barnes. Unfortunately, it has four openers (five if you count Wilfred, pre-1914) and yet it still excludes Boycott, Edrich and Gooch. One of the difficulties with an all-time England team is the surfeit of top-class openers over top-class middle-order batsmen. I deliberately chose Les Ames ahead of Bob Taylor because of the length of the tail otherwise. --Jack | talk page 07:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge Rangiri Dumbulla Stadium

Affected articles:

Correct name per Cricinfo --Chanaka L (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


After being proposed in April nothing has happened. Rangiri Dumbulla Stadium needs to be merged to Rangiri Dambulla International Stadium. Same stadium. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

2005 C&G Trophy articles

Just wondering, but why do we have two articles about the 2005 Cheltenham & Gloucester Trophy? Surely, Cheltenham & Gloucester Trophy in 2005 should be merged into 2005 Cheltenham & Gloucester Trophy? – PeeJay 11:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The "2005 project" all looks somewhat over the top now, especially as nothing like it could ever be repeated. I think as time goes by that much of the 2005 material will end up being merged. --Jack | talk page 06:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, I quite like the idea of club season articles, such as Glamorgan County Cricket Club in 2005. We have similar articles for football clubs over at WP:FOOTY, and I'm sure the American sports do them too. But you're right, a lot of the content of Category:2005 English cricket season could be merged elsewhere. – PeeJay 19:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Single ODI tours

There is a disagreement here on whether single ODI 'tours' such as English cricket team in Ireland in 2009 and Australian cricket team in Scotland in 2009 merit their own article. Here would be a much better venue for getting views on this matter and for a consensus to be reached. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a tricky situation. My reflex is that it's a content fork and could be integrated into another article, the question is which one? The Australia match could be integrated into the article on their tour of England, however this would necessitate a change in title (the name needs to changed anyway, as didn't Australia play in Wales? Australian cricket team in England in 2009 just isn't correct). The Ireland match is more problematic and I'm not sure where it could be merged to. Perhaps an article on international tours of Ireland is required (a la History of cricket in Bangladesh#International tours of Bangladesh)?
Afghanistan cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2009 is a more straight-forward case and should be redirected to 2009–10 ICC Intercontinental Cup#2009 season. Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Why can't we have Australian cricket team in the United Kingdom in 2009? No point having Australian cricket team in Scotland in 2009 as Cricinfo's live ball by ball has different scores to the scorecard. That's how much importance was placed in the match. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me and it's the title I would have suggested had I remembered. Any idea about the Ireland article? Nev1 (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Nah not sure sorry... Aaroncrick (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The arguments you guys have made are all great, and the only one I can offer in response is that England's tour of Ireland and Australia's excursion to Scotland are separate from the Australian tour of England and so should have separate articles. I would also suggest that, if the articles do remain separate, that the Australian cricket team in England in 2009 article remains at that title, as Australia are playing against England and English county sides. I know that the First Test was played in Cardiff, but it wasn't Wales that Australia were playing, it was England. – PeeJay 22:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, "England" is actually Great Britain or even UK or even British Isles. I haven't checked for specific examples but I know Australian and other touring teams in the past have made excursions to Scotland, Ireland and even the Netherlands as part of a tour of "England". Given that England is the main destination and given that the England cricket team is actually a misnamed British Isles team, I see no reason to split out any match(es) played in Scotland. However, I do think an England team visiting Ireland (or Scotland or Wales) to play a LOI does constitute an international "visit" (I won't call it a tour) and so I think the England in Ireland article is valid. I'm sure we have plenty of "tour" articles where a team has made only a flying visit. But I would certainly merge the Aussies in Scotland article back into the main tour article and I would not rename that article as we would have to go right back to the 19th century and do nearly the whole lot since then. --Jack | talk page 04:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about this a bit more, there is no reason why someone should not create an article about an individual match providing the subject complies with the site's notability rules. This particular match does comply so there are no grounds for objection on that basis. However, a summary of the match does belong in Australian cricket team in England in 2009 so I have included it there with a main article link to the Australia-Scotland article. On the same basis, if some Sussex fan wants to create an article about the Aussie game in Hove, why shouldn't he, as long as a summary is included in the main tour article?
Rather than argue about this, I would say that the real issue is with the main tour article itself which is hopelessly incomplete and unfit for purpose. I could not believe (no, I did believe) that the only substantial text was about the "build-up", including an extensive quote from Botham on Sky TV, as if any of that has any relevance or purpose in terms of creating and developing an objective encyclopaedic article about a series of cricket matches. Who cares what Botham had to say several months ago and who cares about Flintoff missing a bus? Those who are interested in developing this article need to get down to basics and write about the matches. The only thing in the so-called build-up that was relevant is the bit about Brett Lee's injury which I've moved to the England Lions match section, as it was then that he sustained the injury. --Jack | talk page 05:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Slight correction - the England team is in no way a misnamed British Isles team, more a misnamed England and Wales team, as it has been since the mid 1990s when Ireland and Scotland broke away from the then TCCB. Scottish and Irish players (and Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man players since 2005/6) have to fulfil a residential qualification before being eligible to play for them. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Although these articles may well meet the general notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable sources", the same policy also states that: "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article". I understand that to mean because sources such as Cricinfo/BBC cover all international matches there needs to be more than just a standard match report from them for a game to have an individual article. When I look at the category of cricket matches they all have a claim of significance whereas Ireland-England and Scotland-Australia, to me, look like run-of-the-mill ODIs. --Jpeeling (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Could these 'loose' articles/matches be placed in a "List of Miscellaneous One Day Internationals in 2009" type article, with appropriate links from the "Australians in England" types?—MDCollins (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem with a list of misc. ODIs in 2009 is that the only link would be the fact that they took place in 2009 (not a big objection really, it's a reasonable suggestion). Surely most of these one match "tours" will be related to the associate nations as the Future Tours programme usually bunches together a load of ODIs and Tests? I think it would be more beneficial to have something like "international cricket tours of xxx". That way, there would at least be the linking theme of a country. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1

open YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Cricket to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

MVCC

Montevideo Cricket Club - mainly known for football and rugby, but a pretty old club in South America. Perhaps needs some cricket input.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting

I will soon nominate the article for FL but first what do we do about the ACC Asia XI flag gap? (Tsunami Match) Aaroncrick (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help SSGH and PeeJay2K3. :) Aaroncrick (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting/archive1 up and running. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Dear o dear :( needing urgent attention. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen it all at Wikipedia, but I don't think things around here will ever stop amazing me! 4 FAs in a bulk nomination for added measure! -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 00:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm kind of expecting it to get binned regardless of the debate.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Closed as a keep, but certainly the The Most Interesting AfD Debate In History! SGGH ping! 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brian Booth/archive1

Up and running YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Riot of 1879#Impact on later tours

That section includes a quote from Lord Harris' autobiography (which I assume to be A Few Short Runs (1921 Murray)) but needs verification. Apologies if this has been asked previously, but does anyone have access to it? –Moondyne 16:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to remove that quote and make more use of Chris Harte's book (p.116) which discusses Harris' views and actions at the time. Given that he changed his mind about Murdoch and Spofforth, I don't think the later quote is pertinent. The article needs a lot more citations and I notice Harte's book was used originally (see list of cited books) but not given due credit. --Jack | talk page 08:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I do agree it needs a lot more referencing. The editor who produced most of the article text has retired and the FAC citation density requirement back then is quite a lot lower than it is now. Out of interest, thist may have been one of the 1st few cricket FAs, other early ones I recall being Bodyline (demoted and regained FA) and Brian Close (demoted). Close might be a recovery project for someone as the prose is generally quite good and references are there, as a list. It mostly needs lots of inline referencing. –Moondyne 15:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It's all under control, it's from the Wisden Anthology. I have the article printed out with book pages scribbled over it and am adding more background info in there etc.... about the difference in cricket culture between the English ruling class and the Australians, yobbos apparently, according to English and Australian historians alike, and the Vic-NSW rivalry, which explains why NSW ppl might detest a Vic umpire ruling against them. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS naming

Can anyone tell me if the correct title is List of India women Test cricketers or List of Indian women Test cricketers. Based on the red links and the titles of other lists in existence, I created the former, but it was moved to the latter as it was a typo. Would like to confirm before I move it back. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 12:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's players for India then the former would be correct. If it was the latter than Lisa Sthalekar would be included. She is an Indian Test cricketer, but she plays for Australia. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It's the former, and I saw that all such lists had the "India" naming convention. So I'll move back. cheers -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 15:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Understood - actually when you say it like that it makes sense. My apologies. Anotherclown (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Throwing (cricket)

The lead paragraph of this article is a complete mess. I started to straighten it out, but eventually aborted my edit as I found more and more things wrong with it. Does anyone fancy having a hack at it? There is confusion between what the Laws say and what ICC regulations say, and to what classes of cricket the latter apply. The Laws are stated as saying things that they don't. Also well-meaning people keep on replacing "straightening" by "bending". Futhermore the last two entries in the References are now broken. JH (talk page) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Andhra cricketers

I've just written a list of Andhra cricketers. One cricketer's name is given on Cricket Archive and Cricinfo as Kumaraja of Venkatagiri. His full name is Velugoti Venkata Sesha Raja Gopala Krishna Yachendra. I wonder where we should place the article itself on Wikipedia. I offer the solution VVS Ramprasada Govinda Krishna Yachendra, though this is by no means elegant.

Does anyone have any other ideas? Bobo. 14:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Kumaraja of Venkatagiri is a title - Prince of Venkatagiri; something along the lines of Gopala Krishna Yachendra with the full name as a redirect might be an option. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 15:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
IMO, it should be Kumararaja of Venkatagiri, because that was how he was known, with redirects pointing to it from anything else that we consider appropriate. There are several such first class cricketers who were known by their titles, the most famous of course being Maharajkumar of Vizianagram. Only where the real names were also prominently used (like Bhupinder Singh of Patiala) do we need to use the real names as the title of the article. Tintin 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Btw, "Kumaraja" sounds odd. "Kumararaja" sounds better, unless "Kuma" has some meaning in Telugu. Add - google has both in similar numbers. Tintin 16:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought the same too after a while, dunno how I missed that initially, maybe I need to get new glasses! -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 02:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm at it...

A page which I created at Narayana Rao (name as appears on Cricket Archive) was moved by another user to Sribhashyan Lakshmi Narayana Rao (the subject's full name). I fear any attempt of my own to move it back, unless told otherwise that it would be a good idea, may be construed as wheel warring. Any suggestions? Bobo. 15:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My uneducated opinion is that it should be Narayana Rao (cricketer). It is very unlikely that his full name was used commonly. Tintin 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia's naming policies on using the most common name (in this case what CricInfo and Cricket Archive call him) I have moved it back to Narayana Rao, I haven't put "(cricket)" on there, because there is no other article called Narayana Rao to need to distinguish it from. SGGH ping! 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
My old page, or Cricket Archive? I will investigate.. 84.69.33.47 (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (Lazy Bobo)
According to Cricket Archive, I should have one entry for Narayana Rao, and one for Narayanaswami Rao, which appears to be the case. In any case, thank you for prompting me to check, I can easily make mistakes. 84.69.33.47 (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Tintin probably meant the disambiguation page contained four/five entries which is why he suggested 'Narayana Rao (cricketer)' as the name for the article. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Aha, that makes sense. Thankfully there needs to be no further disambiguation with the cricketer's name unlike so many others' names that are on the list, then. 84.69.33.47 (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
As Jpeeling said ... thanks. Tintin 08:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh

On main page. Surprised that it was vandalised only once in 105 minutes YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For all main page articles why aren't they temporarily blocked? Aaroncrick (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Front page stuff has to follow Wikipedia's slogan of "everyone can edit". Still only 1 vandalism in 5 hours 15 mins. odd YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Still that's a good thing. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox style question

I've been using "& ndash ;" where a dash is required in infobox fields based on some other Cricket infoboxes I've seen. Today someone has come by and mass changed many of the infoboxes that I've created over the past few days to "-" as a clean up service. Which one is correct? thx, -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 23:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely the endash version. If anyone else tries to change endashes back to hyphens when they shouldn't be, point them to WP:DASH. – PeeJay 23:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I favour ‐ personally, as it is clear to everyone what is being used - it is often hard to tell the difference between – and -, especially in the edit box. As long as the replacements are for the actual ndash (–) and not the hyphen (-), it doesn't really matter, but I have been known to revert them for ease of use in the past. Personally it irritates me slightly when the "clean-up service" is performed, but it may just be personal preference. As long as it looks the same, that's the important thing. However, how many people offer the "clean-up" service to replace the incorrect hyphens with ndashes?—MDCollins (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears, judging by Vrinda Bhagat that the html has simply been replaced. It looks the same, but is impossible to tell the difference in the edit box (and so to my mind encourages mistakes). But it does display as an ndash.—MDCollins (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
On looking at the article it does look like it's correct, but while seeing the edit/diff windows it appeared to be more a hyphen than a dash. I'll leave it as is now. I personally prefer my ndash and nbsps to remain as is. cheers.-SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 00:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've changed my view on this over the years. When I started writing bios, I was firmly of the opinion that this was an evolving use of English, and that hyphens for dashes were quite acceptable, only using dashes reluctantly on the grounds that the MOS said one should do so. I still suspect that this use of the hyphen will become standard usage before too many more years have passed, but oddly enough these days I use dashes as a matter of course - and certainly prefer the source to be written out as – or — rather than the (not always obvious) plain symbols. Loganberry (Talk) 16:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
And yes, I do know that I used a hyphen in that last comment! I don't think there's anything wrong with it in such a situation, but for the moment at least I'm still in a minority. Not that this is directly relevant to cricket, of course! Loganberry (Talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

India women Test cricketers

All of India's women Test cricketers now have articles (stubs - hardly any coverage to expand further for most). Some of the 20 or so articles that existed prior to last week still need infoboxes and sourcing though. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 19:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done Spaceman. Good effort. Nick mallory (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Per request for suggestions, you don't need to put women everywhere as it is clear that they aren't playing against men. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. I'm guessing you meant in the list, not the articles (where the infobox adds it). -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Batsman" and female players

Is "batsman" the correct term for a female player who is selected for her batting abilities? The particular example I have in mind is Claire Taylor, where it does look somewhat odd, although it seems to be very much a de facto standard. The style guide doesn't have anything to say either way on this point, so perhaps it would be worth adding a clarifying note in there somewhere? Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

They neatly side-step having to mention it in the CricInfo profile, annoyingly! SGGH ping! 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Cricinfo doesn't use the term batsman in profiles but does so in news articles and almanack reports. CricketArchive however uses the term batsman. Times, Telegraph, Guardian and BBC among others, all use the term batsman, so it's generally accepted as the correct term. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 13:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I seem to recall hearing that, at least in England, female cricketers prefer the term "batsman". Certainly "batswoman" sounds rather clumsy, whilst "batter" to me is ugly. JH (talk page) 16:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping that in the blurb CricInfo would have said something like "Taylor has been an excellent batsman for England" but alas. There is also "bat" but that is a bit archaic. SGGH ping! 20:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
This quizz question (permanent link) could have something to do with your question. OrangeKnight (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
"Batsman" is perfectly correct. Let's stop looking for problems where they don't exist. Nick mallory (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's a problem, I just wanted to establish firmly what the convention was to avoid introducing any inconsistent terms into articles. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC).

Cricket quiz show

Not really related to WP:CRIC, but I've just stumbled across re-runs of Trivia Test Match on BBC7 at the moment - thought some of you might be interested. Quiz trivia-based show, scored using the rules of cricket, hosted by Johnners.—MDCollins (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879/archive2

Delisted FA in Jan 2007, back. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also on GAN Laurie Nash, Alastair Cook, Sam Loxton and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brian Booth/archive1 YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated templates

I saw on Category:Deprecated cricket templates a notice to come here with all inquiries about four cricket templates that are called "deprecated". Who can give me information about the templates that supersede them, their compatibility, and the stage of the deprecation process? Debresser (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Debresser (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your top three infoboxes (cricketer infobox, infobox cricketer, infobox historic cricketer) are all superceded by Template:Infobox cricketer biography (a long-winded name, but it was the best available at the time. Gradually all articles using these infoboxes are being migrated, but the easiest way to do this is unfortunately manually as far more information is included in the 'new' template. Information on how to use this template, as well as a "standard" blank sheet available to copy and paste is available here. If you need further help with this template, feel free to contact me directly. There is not a specific drive to replace the old infoboxes, but everyone is agreed on the process, and that they have been deprecated and aren't to be used.
A tool to migrate Cricketer Infobox Infobox Cricketer to Infobox cricketer biography can be found here - copy the old template into this tool and then fill in the other information.—MDCollins (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
As for First Class Matches, I've no real knowledge on this one, but would assume that Test match has superceded that, but no-one has completed the migration process for that one either.
I hope this helps,
—MDCollins (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It does, thank you. I shall add the {{Tdeprecated}} template to all of them, for the meantime in <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags or on the documentation page. When (if) you are finished replacing the old templates, you can remove the noinclude tags or move it to the template itself. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_63&oldid=1136416354"