Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 80

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82→Archive 85

List of international cricket centuries at the Manuka Oval

Articles like List of international cricket centuries at the Manuka Oval notable? Qed237 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

At that length, I wouldn't say so. Harrias talk 07:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It's shown as a featured list but there's no link in the talk page to any FL review??? Can anyone advise, please? Thanks. Jack | talk page 10:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That's easy to explain. SWASTIK 25 has copied the template that says featured list from a different article when he created the talk page for this article. It's just a question of which article's talk page it has been copied from. SWASTIK, have you done such copy/paste to the talk page of other articles you have created? I don't think you should be assigning quality ratings to articles you have created. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Athomeinkobe: I have notified Swastik about FL before after he created List of Big Bash League centuries on 1 January and immediatley put it as a FL (talkpage diff). This editor has had multiple articles removed and clearly shows signs of competence issues. Should we request a topic ban from creating articles? Qed237 (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw saw that the article I talk about here was created on 30 November so the message I left was after that and perhaps he has learnt not to rate articles anymore. Qed237 (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
If anyone within this project wants to take a look at their other creations and notability that would be appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to the notability. Is the article notable?. Qed237 (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's notable, just not featured :-) It is about an international venue and scoring a century is certainly a noteworthy achievement. Perhaps more so in limited overs than in first-class. Jack | talk page 14:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Noteworthy, perhaps, but notable in the sense of needing a separate article? My thoughts are if the list could reasonably included in the article on the ground itself it doesn't need a separate article. The content should be merged into the article on the Manuka Oval. Nev1 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there's already a list of LOI matches in that article so it would make sense to add this as the next sub-section. Therefore, I too would merge it. Jack | talk page 12:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe it needs to remain as a separate article if only because it fits with the other articles listing international centuries at other Australina grounds, eg MCG, SCG, WACA etc. There has been a bit of work undertaken over the past few months (fair disclosure, some by me) to improve the listing of cricket records by ground. The international centuries lists are mostly done (I think) and now the 5-wicket haul lists are starting to appear. Removal of Manuka Oval from the centuries group would also imply its removal from the 5-wicket haul group as well. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
On the subject of featured lists, I've just stumbled across List of cricketers called for throwing in top-class cricket matches in Australia. What do others think on this? IMO, I don't think this is FL anymore. It was nominated in 2008, mainly on the basis of it being "interesting". I would expect to see each line referenced, rather than a handful of general/specfic references for the lead. I don't want to undo anyone's hard work, so I thought I'd raise it here. Sadly, the main contributor doesn't seem to be active anymore. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
As you say, "interesting" but hardly at FL level. Especially as it now requires a lot of extra references. I'd suggest keeping the list, dropping the FL rating and adding a ref note. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

2015 ICC Awards specifically, ICC Awards generally: references for nominees/shortlist?

Hello WikiProject Cricket people,
The 2015 ICC Awards AfD was closed as basically a "Keep, but improve".

So, how to improve it, other than gussying it up with {{flagicons}}?

I think this a more general problem.

Randomly selected:

I have tried to find reliable references for the nominees for 2015 ICC Awards (and ICC Awards 2004 to 2014) without success. Maybe some of them are hidden within the Cricinfo website.
I sure as hell can't find them.

What do you think about this?

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Central Recreation Ground, Hastings

Can someone please reassess this article for me? I don't like reassessing my own articles. Thinking it's probably a B or C class now. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I was recently doing some clean-up work on a few articles, and I came across the behemoth that is Chris Gayle's infobox. This made me think back to previous discussions about infoboxes, and set me to fiddling around with some ideas. On Gayle's article, the main issue was that he has played for so many Twenty20 teams, the list just went on and on, adding more and more rows on. As a consequence, I opted to make that hidden. I've done the same for the career statistics: while they are important to include, I don't think they need to be instantly visible, especially given the height they add on. I also reduced the information on international appearances a little bit. These are just initial mock-ups, but a key thing to consider is that they use the same parameters, so this change could be made by just changing the template, and without having to edit any articles at all. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts: I don't expect everyone is going to love this, but I do think we need to work on shortening the infobox somehow, and if this gives us a base to work from, then brilliant! (For another mock-up for a domestic player, see User:Harrias/infobox/doc. Harrias talk 22:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I like the proposed infobox which looks compact and provides all the basic details of the cricketer. I notice that the style used is quite similar to that of ice hockey players infobox. This infobox improves the overall readability of the article and should be implemented. Fenopy (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I like the compressed element around international matches. By that I mean the removal of the dates & teams of the first/last matches, and just sticking to the years. These have a habit of becoming outdated and quick on all but the most prominent of players. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems a big improvement to me (particularly in the age of the roaming T20 player) - although perhaps it might encourage the addition of stats tables in article (which I tend to dislike) and maybe less updating of stats in the inbox as they aren't visible - the potential is for even more hideously out of date stats than at present perhaps? Personally I'd like to see First-class debut visible (as a year only is fine imo, but that might involve too many changes to existing boxes) - it would give some kind of context to a career like that of Hammy Love where his international debut came very late in his career. Personally I'm not fussed about List A and T20 domestic showing by default, but I imagine people will argue with that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. I'm pretty busy off-wiki at the moment, so haven't had much of a chance to look at this any more. Blue Square Thing; having a always visible "Playing career: XXXX - YYYY" is something I'm hoping to include, but I haven't worked out the best way to generate that from the old fields at the moment, it might have to be a new feature if we do switch over. I'm also working on an automatic tool to scrape from CricketArchive to create / update infoboxes, but I'm having to learn a fair bit of code to do that! Harrias talk 22:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

England Lions

On the England Lions cricket team article, there's a section where it lists the results of their series. It separates matches against the A team equivalent from "other first-class/List A/T20 matches". But I was wondering whether that meant it should exclude any match that isn't a formal "counts towards your average" match? The majority of games not against other A sides won't be. Same goes for the head-to-head sections. If they should be included, we probably need to amend the headings. HornetMike (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a bit ORish to make the separation. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion re NCRIC and CRIN

As WP:CRIN is the work, either by writing it or offering contributions to it, of numerous project members and as it is the basis of WP:NCRIC, you all need to be aware that it is currently under discussion here. If you wish to express any views about the wording of NCRIC or CRIN, please use the opportunity now because the outcome of this discussion will likely be a wording that you cannot easily change in future. Your "opponents" do not like you creating articles about players who made a single appearance in a major match. If they get their way, your scope will be seriously limited in future.

Although I have resigned from the site because I am disgusted by the way that blatant bad faith can go unpunished, I have been asked to come back and help with NCRIC and CRIN, given that I was the principal author of CRIN. I am prepared to do that but I will not take part in any other editing or discussion in the foreseeable future. Jack | talk page 08:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wording of CRIN

Based on comments and questions raised at the NSPORTS discussion, I think we need to discuss the opening statement of CRIN (and thereby NCRIC) here. At present, CRIN begins by stating:

The following guidelines for notability of a cricket person to qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia:
  • has appeared in at least one cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire, played at the highest international and domestic level (for convenience referred to as a major cricket match)

NCRIC opens with:

A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she:
  1. has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire

I wonder if we should take the wording of CRIN and put that into NCRIC? CRIN stipulates that the match must have been at the highest international and (should be "or", so I'm changing that anyway) domestic level and the controversial term "major cricket" is simply used "for convenience", as it is in the real world. NCRIC is too brief, somehow, and perhaps tries to make the point by losing the point.

What do you think? Jack | talk page 11:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Re the understandable doubts about using "major cricket" in the criteria, this today is a loose term only as was "first-class cricket" before 1895. Using "first-class cricket" in the criterion would be strictly incorrect as it is a particular form of the sport (i.e., double innings, eleven-a-side, at least three days, etc.) and it did not exist officially before 1895. The SNG must also encompass pre-1895 cricket of what was de facto "first-class standard", historic single wicket, modern limited overs matches known statistically as List A and top-class Twenty20. It is a difficult point but the admittedly loose term "major cricket" does encapsulate all the requirements. Jack | talk page 12:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't pretend to be a cricket authority, but we use terms all the time to refer to things and institutions that would have been unknown or anachronistic to times in question. Whether one term or another to refer to top-flight cricket was in use (or even the concept existing) in the 19th century is irrelevant. That a term can be defined to the understanding of those not knowledgeable in the sport is. I agree that the wording of NCRIC is too brief, and that including the expanded wording from CRIN as Jack suggests is a good first step to improving that. Ravenswing 14:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Ravenswing. In fact, several terms were in use during the 18th and 19th century. You can read of "great matches", "important matches", "top-class matches" and, before it was officially defined, "first-class matches". So, basically, you have to choose a term that helps and stick with it. Jack | talk page 14:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Support - It wasn't too long ago that WP:NFOOTY was changed to reflect that a footballer must have played or managed in a "Tier 1 International Match (as defined by FIFA)" rather than "senior international football," as that ambiguity technically allowed players who played on, for example, the South Ossetia national football team to have an article, even though South Ossetia is not widely recognized as an independent nation, nor are they recognized by FIFA. I agree that the wording of CRIN should be copied to NCRIC, despite the fact that major cricket is wikilinked in NCRIC. — Jkudlick tcs 02:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it's beyond our wit to come up with something that encompasses what we mean without a) using the term "major cricket" (which is a confusing term) and b) isn't too unwieldy. --Dweller (talk)
  • Suggestions. I think I must concede that use of the admittedly unofficial term "major cricket" in NCRIC and in the definition part of CRIN is a cause of discomfort. As one of the contributors at NSPORTS was unhappy with the specific date 1697, and given that this date is subject to change (however unlikely) in the light of ongoing research, maybe we should take a non-date-specific line too. Therefore, how about this for both CRIN and NCRIC:
(The) following guidelines for notability of a cricket person to qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia:
  • has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level
This includes both men's and women's cricket. The standard remains ONE top-level match. The match can have been played in any year so if we find a County Championship match in 1632, it qualifies. We are no longer hidebound by the 1894 and 1947 rulings on "first-class cricket" because we only need substantial source verification of a match's quality. Within the body of CRIN we can specify which countries operate internationally and domestically at the highest level (bearing in mind that some countries play highest-level domestic matches only occasionally).
I would continue to argue a point I have raised more than once already that we should place an onus on editors who lack printed sources to cite both CA and CI.
Finally, I think we should set some kind of reasonable deadline for this discussion as the NSPORTS one is on hold pending an initiative here. I suggest two more weeks to Sunday, 17 January. Time? After breakfast in GB (bacon and eggs have priority). Jack | talk page 11:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think you're getting there with the wording: I too am uncomfortable with the term "major cricket" since it seems to solve the problem of there being no universal term by inventing a term that has never really been used or reliably fixed in meaning... which isn't really the way to do it. So the latest version above is fine by me. What I do think we should develop is a place where all these complexities of past and present cricket, and of who we regard as proper authorities to determine the status of individual matches and players, should be set down somewhere: perhaps in a new "status of cricket matches" article or perhaps as a subsection within the general "Cricket" or "History of cricket" articles. CRIN and NCRIC could then act merely as a precis and signpost to this without having to go into the fine detail themselves – giving non-cricket people the assurance that we have actually considered these matters, and that there is a coherent "back-story" to our application of the criteria. I'm afraid, Jack, that you are the obvious person to concoct such an article as you have the facts at your fingertips and some of the areas where the definitions get a little wobbly back in the mists of time are firmly in your area of expertise. The "Variations in first-class cricket stats" article might perhaps then be wound into this. I'm about to disappear for 10 days or so from this coming week and can't be a lot of help currently. Johnlp (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Reply. It's a good idea, John. I think the best place for it would be a new "status of cricket matches" article. We would need to outline the types of, errmmm, major cricket and when they have existed, plus a listing of the most substantial sources like S&B, Red Lilly & co. for the early days and then Wisden, Playfair, the ACS and the onliners. There are several substantial individuals too: e.g., Ashley-Cooper, Buckley, Webber. I'll make a start on it. I'm just about to retire from IT (next Friday) so I need to keep busy. Hope you have a great holiday, by the way. Jack | talk page 12:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sure finding things to do in retirement won't be a problem for you! I'm sure also that you can get away with using the phrase "major cricket" within the article, just so long as it's not the article title... so it doesn't look like we're trying to impose a new categorisation on what is already a crowded scene. Good luck. Johnlp (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The idea is not that bad, but there are some possible problems:
  1. Substantial sources are not enough(what is a substantial source?). They should be independent as well. There is also the possibility that a single source represents views of a very small minority.
  2. There is a significant difference between players that were tried out in the highest level and were quickly removed because of bad performance or injury... and those who had a longer career. Coverage of players that were quickly removed is likely to be scarce, and does often not extend above routine newspaper mentions and statistics websites. And even that coverage may even lack any data regarding date of birth, date of death(if dead), surenames... which leads to the question if those players shouldn't be better mentioned in a list, and not a standalone article. Or not at all, if the reliability of the sources is low for such players. These criteria, however, are criteria for standalone articles. Those that would meet GNG would still get their articles, and the scarce, verifiable information about the others would still be in a list, with redirects, of course.
--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I partially agree with Müdigkeit. "Substantial sources" should, of course, read "reliable sources". On Müdigkeit's second point, we have always had consensus, as a WikiProject, and in common with other sports WikiProjects, that a single appearance for a notable side/in a notable competition, makes a player notable, whether they have a long career or disappear into subsequent obscurity. If you'd like, we could start an RfC here and see whether consensus has changed? --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if that is really global consensus or local consensus(of more than one sports project) to have such articles with that coverage, quite a bit of them appear to go againstWP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It would probably make sense to start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), with centralized discussion, on the question whether the notability criteria should be changed. WP:SPORTCRIT, which is at the top of NSPORTS, provides a definition of notability that would exclude quite a lot of such players with few matches.
A WP:Centralized discussion, as RfC, would be the best idea, that discussion and the results could have a strong effect.--Müdigkeit (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't see that interpretation of SPORTCRIT. Revising the notability guideline of this project is the job of this project. It's expertise that we're after here. We're looking to overhaul CRIN/NCRIC, not ATHLETE, BIO or the GNG. --Dweller (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Dweller is quite right. There seemed to be some reluctance from some quarters at WT:NSPORTS to bringing any debate on this issue here: but this is the right place to talk cricket, and to get buy-in for any potential changes from the cricket community who actually create and edit cricket articles. Johnlp (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't see any point in raising an RfC. We need a definition of the key condition in CRIN which we can take back to NSPORTS as a recommendation for update of NCRIC. Updating CRIN is our responsibility and always has been. I agree with John about the need for an article which outlines our determination of match status by reference to recognised sources. This is in progress.
Re one of the points made above, I think we do need an adjective like "substantial" or "significant" to describe the sources we use for this purpose, not merely "reliable". For example, Fred Trueman's autobiography is without question a reliable source but, despite his undoubted knowledge of the game's history, you would not in practice refer to him for advice on whether some early MCC match in 1787 was a "major match", even if he had mentioned it. You would instead refer to someone like G. B. Buckley or Arthur Haygarth who, although much less famous, are the really substantial and significant sources in that area.
Just one other point re something said by Müdigkeit. ALL the sources we use for determination of match status are independent. I think this goes back to the rather silly comment expressed by someone else in the Perera AfD that CA and ESPN are one and the same. They are not, as everyone here knows, and they often contradict each other. Jack | talk page 08:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
All the sources you regularly use here, yes. But what if someone tries to establish notability by citing non-independent sources only? (Is there any reason not to use independent?)--Müdigkeit (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
ESPNCricinfo and CricketArchive have 100% coverage of "major cricket" and CA has very good individualised coverage of lower level matches too. So there is no reason not to use them to confirm meeting NCRIC, except maybe for some really old players (ie <1800s, but I leave that area to the experts). The-Pope (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Müdigkeit, we should steer clear of autobiographies when considering match status (this is why I gave the Trueman example above), otherwise there is no danger of any source being used that is not independent. We do need to be sure that the source is not merely reliable but is the work of a subject matter expert like Buckley or Wisden or the ACS or CA. The-Pope is right about CA but I would strongly recommend that anyone using it should cite ESPN too so that the article cites two independent sources. As for early cricketers, I'm afraid a book source is imperative because the online sites begin their serious coverage much later and I find that they tend to be incomplete if you try to use them for anything before WG's career began in the 1860s. I think that is because they are over-reliant on Wisden, which began at the same time. Jack | talk page 09:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not directly of concern here but in the debate at NSPORTS we triggered an AfD to test NBASE which uses similar criteria to NCRIC. This was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. E. Hillebrand which, despite the best efforts of Müdigkeit who was completely unsupported, has just resulted in an inevitable and resounding "snow keep", thereby justifying NBASE. In the discussion, one of the baseball editors cited WP:WINNEROUTCOMES which states: "Athletes and other sportspersons are subject to outcomes which vary according to the sport in question. In general, professional athletes in major sports are always kept, players who fail to play in top level professional leagues are often deleted. Participants in sports at a national level are more likely to be kept as notable than participants at a local level. The notability standard for athletes is Wikipedia:Notability (sports)". Jack | talk page 05:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

New proposal

As recommended by Johnlp above, I've compiled a list of the main sources used for determination of match status and included it in History of cricket, as an extra section, with the proposal that it is cross-referenced from CRIN. Therefore, the proposed wording of CRIN (opening paragraphs of the "Individuals" section only) to be decided upon by this time next week is as follows:

Individuals
This is the expanded detail of the agreed guidelines, that are summarised in the Cricket section of the Notability (sports) guidelines.

WikiProject Cricket participants have adopted the following guidelines for notability of a cricket person to qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia:

  • has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level
  • has appeared in at least one ICC World Cup Qualifier match since 2005, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005, as a player or umpire
  • has appeared in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above as a player or umpire

The substantial source qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971; or in any major domestic competition or match. Major domestic first-class competitions include the County Championship, the Ranji Trophy, the Sheffield Shield, etc. Major domestic limited overs competitions include all List A matches and the Twenty20 Cup, Indian Premier League, etc. Major individual matches (i.e., played outside organised competitions) are those shown to be significant, especially if historically significant, by substantial sources as outlined in Historical sources. For expedience, editors often rely on CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo to source information, although more substantial sources exist in books such as Wisden Cricketers' Almanack that may not be readily available.

Thank you, Jack, that all seems very sensible (and a very good use of your newly-liberated time!). I suppose in the section on the important sources within the History of cricket article there ought to be some referencing: probably Birley and/or Major would cover most of the points. I think we may need a little more flesh on the period from 1697 to 1895 and I think a cross-ref to the Variations article might also be helpful: most of the "disputed" matches are, if I recall correctly, back in the period before first-class was defined, but there have been a few since, such as those involving Jack Hobbs in about 1910. The fact is that there is pretty much unanimous opinion over the status of perhaps 99.99% of matches going back a very long way, and that's what we base our notability criteria on, while acknowledging that in a very few instances there are divergent views among the experts which we are also aware of and take into account in relevant articles. I'll try to have another look over the next few days, but am still mostly away at present, and will be for about a further four or five days. Johnlp (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I also agree that it is quite sensible wording. Will have a further look over the weekend and make more comments after that. RossRSmith (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I've added a bit about the disputed matches which, as you say, are a minute percentage of the whole. I've "borrowed" citations from the existing historical articles which should cover the main points in the new section. Please let me know if this is okay. I'm sure I could find additional citations if any are desired. Thanks. Jack | talk page 21:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Time is up and as there is some support for the proposed wording above, and no significant disagreements with it, I've updated WP:CRIN. Will now do the same at WP:NCRIC. Thanks. Jack | talk page 14:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice one. A thankless task (thanks, BTW), and a it clarifies things from the issues raised. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for doing that, Jack. The forces of deletionism may be staved off for a while with that. Johnlp (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Well done.RossRSmith (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion. I think we can say it is closed now and, as John says, hopefully the deletionists will stay away for another day. Jack | talk page 09:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for shouldering the burden. Use a permalink to this section to show 100% consensus from the WikiProject the next time someone wants to challenge it. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. Have stored one on my user page. Jack | talk page 16:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wilfred Hoare

Could someone please review this article. Thank you.Gomach (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Our article on the chinaman

See Left-arm unorthodox spin. Two things (and let's try to keep the discussions separate):

What is a chinaman

I see a few comments on the talk page saying that they thought a chinaman is the left armer's googly. That's what I thought too. We've currently labelled the left arm wrist spinner's stock ball as a chinaman, but I think that's incorrect. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the chinaman is the stock ball. A player is sometimes referred to as bowling "chinamen and googlies", which wouldn't appear to make much sense if the chinaman wasn't the stock ball. I've just looked in Barclay's World of Cricket for confirmation, but unfortunately their glossary does not include the term. JH (talk page) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A chinaman bowled by an orthodox left armer would be, in effect, a googly but the article is about the unorthodox style which is the chinaman per se. The chinaman bowler's googly is therefore the orthodox delivery and his "stock ball" is a chinaman. Denis Compton was a chinaman bowler and Gary Sobers bowled both SLA and SLC. Jack | talk page 16:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


A chinaman is just a generic term for any left arm wrist spinner - so it would apply to his stock delivery, not his googly. Py0alb (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I think we should edit the Wiktionary entry to remove item 3. A misunderstanding is not an "alternative definition", its just a misunderstanding. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/310734.html Py0alb (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember a time (20 years ago or so?) when David Frith tried, on very shaky logic, to argue that the delivery that removed Walter Robins and supposedly gave birth to the term "chinaman" (and a story I don't believe, but see below!) must have turned away from him, and so the chinaman turned away from the right-hander. It's all in Wisden Cricket Monthly from the time he was editor, but I'm afraid I haven't got a copy any more. I think he even tries that line in the Bodyline book. But everyone else goes with the chinaman as the stock ball turning into the right-hander, as JH and BJ say above. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Origins of the term

We've authoratively stated that it's after Puss Achong. Pretty sure we had a chat here that at the least threw doubt on that claim. Anyone? (We might also need to tweak Achong's biog) --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a chat about it in August last year https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_78#Chinaman:_invented_in_Yorkshire.21
RossRSmith (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This is one of those things that has become mired in anecdote and it would be wrong, I think, to claim any definite origin for the term. I don't think we should be making any authorative statements about Achong as the origin. Jack | talk page 16:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
We ought to stick to what RS say. What do they say? --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
That's the problem. They're quiet. That Cricinfo reference in the article is a deadlink. I've looked in a few books but all I can find about the chinaman is in Barclays which confines itself to a definition (on page 694): "The ball bowled by left-arm wrist spinners which turns in from the off". As we all know. Nothing about the origin. Jack | talk page 17:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I have a cricket jargon book somewhere. I'll try to dig it out. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
As I stated in that linked discussion, whatever the origin of the term it definitely pre-dates Achong, at least as an international bowler (my money is on Roy Kilner or Maurice Leyland inventing it, as Cardus seemed to think it came from the Yorkshire team. Unless he invented it himself...), and there are a couple of refs in that discussion. Additionally, there is the story about Walter Robins in 1933, but for my money it is dubious. There is an excellent book The Strange Death of English Legspin which covers the Robins story, and casts some doubt on it, and part of the book includes an interview with Robins' son who suggest that it was not true (and suggests that Patsy Hendren may have invented the name). Also (although this is fairly unverifiable), I can find no evidence that Achong ever bowled "chinamen"; there are no contemporary mentions of it that I can find in newspapers or in the Cricketer, and the contemporary reports of the match where Achong bowled Robins suggest nothing untoward about the delivery. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Mmm..I can only find one occasion where Robins was dismissed by Achong and that is in the 2nd Test at Old Trafford in 1933 http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/14/14750.html and as you can see Robins was stumped not bowled. Apologies for misunderstanding if you meant "bowled" as in dismissed, but if you have a ref to instance of dismissal actually being bowled, I'd be interested to see it or be guided to it.RossRSmith (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Oops, that's just me mis-remembering. Stumped it was, my mistake! Sarastro1 (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Following that scorecard through to Achong's CricketArchive biog, it's interesting that they say he was a slow left-arm orthodox bowler! I checked on Denis Compton and for him they have slow left-arm chinaman. Jack | talk page 08:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Achong may have invented the left arm doosra! --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

All this is fun and stuff, but we'll have to stick to the RS. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the article on Puss Achong (redlink?), based on the sources cited there, has it about right. It seems that his stock ball was orthodox left-arm (finger spin, turning away from a right-handed batsman) but he bowled unorthodox left arm spin (wrist spin, turning towards a right-handed batsman) as a variation. (Perhaps is was actually a googly or a doorsra, but that is not what the sources say.) It is interesting that there are few (no?) contemporaneous sources for the "bowled by a chinaman" comment, but it is certainly in the literature. Achong's article goes with "it is reputed". Which Cricinfo link is a deadlink? They all work for me.

Here are a couple of refs published in Australia which might help further this discussion. Both refer to Kilner bowling a delivery known as a Chinaman. The News (Adelaide) issue of 12 July 1926 by Robert Crockett http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/129740663 and The Advertiser (Adelaide) issue of September 1936 by Neville Cardus http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/74322348
As with Cardus above, there are a number of other press articles during the 1930s referring to Leyland also bowling that type of ball.
Here is a quote from a match report which I found on the British Newspaper Archive by Frank Stainton in the Hull Daily Mail 17 July 1931
"At 67 Leyland bowled for Macaulay at the Pavilion end, and in his second over he disposed of Nichols, that left-hander chasing Leyland's "Chinaman," as he calls it - the left-hand off break, which to Nichols turned from the leg stump - and being smartly caught at the wicket by Wood."
RossRSmith (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD for PSL teams and 2018 season

Hi,

I've just nominated 5 future PSL teams for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sialkot Smashers. The articles involved are:

There's also an article at AfD currently for the 2018 Pakistan Super League. I've informed the WP:PSL as well as they also have an obvious interest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Charles Lister, Victoria cricketer

When adding missing bios for Victoria, I remember creating one for Charles Lister. Does anyone have any more info on him, esp. details surrounding his death? Seems quite sad that he spent his final days in an asylum. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There are death notices for him in The Times, the Evening Standard and a couple of Hampshire newspapers, but they don't say much. He was the youngest son of Thomas Lister of Armitage Park in Staffordshire and his nephew was Lord Ribblesdale; he lived in Anglesey, Hampshire, which is a pleasant estate-like village near Gosport. Johnlp (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

International cricket in 2015–16 and what to include on the article

Please see this discussion about what to include on this (and related) articles. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination). Thanks. Jack | talk page 18:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I have raised a proposal at this AfD that the article should be kept but rewritten. My rationale is a perceived need to alter its focus away from the terminology and onto what "the highest level of international and domestic cricket" (quoting WP:NCRIC) actually is. I believe you need an article that describes this central aspect to your notability guidelines. Unless I am having a wood for trees moment and missing something that exists under another name? I am not an expert on cricket, only a fan, and am essentially a football man. Nevertheless, I am willing to try and rewrite this article in the hope that it will be retained under a new and appropriate direction. Does anyone object and would anyone wish to assist? I will not do anything yet pending any views. Thank you. GnGn (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
ok, but what would you call the page? "Major cricket" is an unacceptable title as there is no evidence of it being a genuine stand-alone term. The page Forms of Cricket already covers all the content you wish to include. A redirect would be entirely comprehensive Py0alb (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Importance scale of Mustafizur Rahman

Major cricket - possible merge

Hi. Given the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination) as non-consensus I'd like to consider a possible merge of the Major cricket article to History of cricket - see the discussion I've started at Talk:Major cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hello. I'm just looking in on a flying visit for the moment. I've been told about this merger proposal and any of you with an interest are welcome to join in. Back sometime soon. Jack | talk page 11:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Argh! Didn't see post above. Sorry, BST. Jack | talk page 11:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Abhay Sharma

A new user AbhaySharmaCric (talk · contribs) who claims to be Abhay Sharma is requesting deletion of the linked article with the concern "The person described in this page doesn't want this information to be available on Wikipedia for privacy purpose". There was a similar situation two months ago when Seanlynchpin (talk · contribs) requested deletion of Sean Lynch (footballer). Two AfD nominations followed for that article (see AfD 1 and AfD 2) and the article was eventually kept. I don't know if WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is applicable in Sharma's case. Thoughts? - Dee03 09:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I was in the discussion about the footballer, and if he's notable enough (which he is, per WP:NCRIC), I believe it should be kept. Removed the PROD since it's not an uncontroversial deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Dee03 (talk · contribs) and Joseph2302 (talk · contribs), Why can't a person cannot delete a Wikipedia page about himself? What happened to privacy? I played the game for myself, not this wikipedia article and I don't want it. It should be my choice if I want it or not. I haven't done any crime by playing and becoming something. AbhaySharmaCric (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Abhay, there is one main reason why we can't delete the article now, and 1 other reason why we are very unlikely to delete it in the future. The current reason is that we have no way, right now, of confirming that you are who you claim to be. We do have a system, called WP:OTRS, where you can confirm your identity and request assistance. BUT, in this case, the cricketer Abhay Sharma played over 100 games of cricket at First-class and List A level - and that history is recorded not just here but on many other websites. ESPNCricInfo, CricketArvchive, CricBuzz and many other websites will forever contain that information, even if it is deleted here. If you have any concerns about the content of the page, especially if it unreferenced, incorrect or contains overly detailed or personal information, then we may be able to edit it, but the page is very, very unlikely to ever be deleted. Congratulations on your career, scoring over 4000 FC runs is a great achievement that you should be proud of. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm impressed at how quickly Mr. Sharma has got familiar with Wikipedia. First the deletion templates and now posting at the WikiProject. All of that in just 4 edits. Dee03 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
And all within a few days of the article in question being created too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's stop with the bad faith implications. If you've come across the page, and specifically want it deleted, it isn't that hard to find the deletion templates. The user was tagged on this page, so the notification would have led here. The-Pope has given a link to OTRS where the user can confirm their identity if they want to, though I doubt it would lead to a deletion anyway, particularly as the article does not reflect negatively on the person in question. Harrias talk 17:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Club/Team Manual of Style?

Hi. Anyone know if there is a MOS for team/club articles at all? Similar to that over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs? I can find some discussion wrt style on the Yorkshire CCC talk page, but other than that not a lot. Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really. There are some fairly obvious things to cover and a degree to which these fall out in a logical sequence, but part of the charm is that all of these things are a little bit different and quirky. Too much standardisation in my view deters browsing. Johnlp (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, WikiProject Cricket in recent years has rarely been very collaborative. Harrias talk 10:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
... which may also be part of its charm. ;) Johnlp (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It's actually the "logical sequence", as per the Yorkshire talk page, that I have more of an issue with. It seems that statistical and list stuff is being thrown at the top of many articles with prose coming later. That seems to be a bit at odds with other projects and, to me at least, seems illogical I suppose. I'd appreciate any thoughts people might have on that specifically. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
My view is that we should be primarily a prose encyclopedia, with strong narrative foremost, and the stats used to augment or summarise points. One of the problems we have is that we depend too much on the statistical sites; but we shouldn't be replicating them. That said, an infobox alongside the text is a useful device for summarising. Johnlp (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Masters Champions League merge proposal

Following an AFD that was recently closed as "keep" but lacking in substantial policy-based discussion, I have proposed that 2016 Masters Champions League be merged into Masters Champions League. Discussion of the proposed merge is here. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Gender-neutrality in cricket lists

Should we use gender-neutral terms in cricket lists like List of Ranji Trophy triple centuries? I have got opposite opinions in the FL nomination, and that is why I am asking here. Bharatiya29 18:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Using gender neutral terms strikes me as a good idea. As an alternative to 'he/she', how about 'they'? Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I generally agree, and "they" is definitely preferable to "he/she". However, batsman is more common than batter, and is generally considered gender-neutral, despite the obvious. It is widely used in coverage of the women's game as well as the men's, so there is no issue with using that. Harrias talk 19:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, it's a list about a male cricket competition. I would go with "batsman" and "he". StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
In this article though, the terms are used in the abstract, so gender-neutral language is more appropriate. Harrias talk 20:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone provide an alternative to he/she for use in this article? Bharatiya29 16:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yearly team articles

So, if someone could take a look at Kent County Cricket Club in 1906 and provide any feedback that'd be appreciated. The article is a response to a whole pile of red links in various templates and seemed the most interesting one to pick first. I'm weighing up whether to include a table of averages and the like - the tricky bit if getting the right figures. I might need to find a better source for that first.

I know there's a whole pile of Derbyshire related articles like this. Are there any others I should know about? Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009 is a Featured article, while a few from the 1880s are Good articles, see my userspace for links to those. Harrias talk 16:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - the 1880 one in particular is just what I was looking for I think. Anyone else? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I've done a couple of Glamorgan ones, though only for the most recent couple of seasons. I was going to start at the beginning and work forward, but I got confused about which would be the first season in the club's history to be considered "notable", so now I'm going to start more recently and work backwards. – PeeJay 11:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorting unknown stats

Is there any guideline or consensus regrading how stats like Balls played or number of fours in an innings should be sorted? Bharatiya29 16:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Typically I would say that they should sort as "worst" – so for 4s and 6s and similar, sort as low, but for minutes and balls faced, sort as high. Harrias talk 09:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Centuries of Quinton de Kock

Whether I am unsure of the criteria, but should we create a separate article for Quinton de Kock's list of international centuries? Or should we wait for more to come from him to make it separate? Also it will be helpful if someone tells me what the minimum number of international centuries is for the separation to be made. Point to be noted: de Kock is the youngest batsman in the world to have reached 10 ODI centuries and has a great conversion rate of his half centuries into centuries. Currently he has 10 ODI centuries but only 5 ODI fifties (1 test century also). Arka 92 13:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We've typically used 25 as the minimum. Harrias talk 15:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Harrias, Steve Smith has got 19 centuries and still has a separate article. Arka 92 14:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Harrias talk 14:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Adam Voges

Over the past few days, I've been reverting, IMO, WP:UNDUE comparisons of Voges to Sachin & The Don. Can someone else review and keep an eye on it. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think there should be something there about comparisons to Bradman simply because of the sheer volume. But it should also take into account this response. We can add "Sir Voges" as a sourced nickname. StAnselm (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
How many times does a name need to be used before we can actually call it a nickname though? I would suggest it needs to be more than transitory. If they're still calling him it next month then I'd think about adding it. But then I pretty much despise the way alleged nicknames are added to articles anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to wait for a year or so to ensure that the nickname was sticking. It's a lousy nickname anyway, without any thought behind it, as it ought to be "Sir Adam". JH (talk page) 21:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm sick of seeing single use, often a pun, newspaper headlines being used as sources for nicknames. Unless it's in common use, it shouldn't be listed, even if you can find a mention in a news article. Common sense must play a part. The-Pope (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Many of Adam's teammates have been calling him "The Don" and "Sir Voges", so it's not just newspaper headlines. I agree "Bradam" was a newspaper headline, though. We need to have a vote on this - I think Adam will still be called these names in a month, since his average is currently 95, and Australia won't play a test until August. Note that he is currently second on the list of all time batting averages, so he must be considered one of the greats of the game. I know people criticize the West Indies team for being "weak" etc. but he also averages 97 against New Zealand, and everyone has a dip in form occassionally so his average against England (on a tour on which he eventually did improve at the end) shouldn't be taken too seriously. In fact, it is amazing that he averages 100 after those failures. Also, if the West Indies are so easy to play, how come many other "top batsman" such as Virat Kohli, struggled against them? (He's not the only example; batting in West Indies is not easy, and most batsman struggle over there.)

Also, note that Voges averaged 104 in the Australian first class domestic season 2014/15 so this may not be a fluke. I think we should at least restore the nicknames "The Don" and "Sir Voges" to the article. 96.248.68.27 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Asia Cup page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

And a (un)related page merge discussion too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Notablity criteria for tournaments

I'm pretty sure that all of you must be bored having these kind of discussion. But I find that WP:CRIN clearly explains the Notablity criteria for Individuals and clubs, it doesn't include criteria for tournaments to be notable.

As per my understanding
  • Tournaments conducted by ICC are notable (Should go without saying)
  • Bilateral and multilateral series having status of major cricket (F/C, LA & T20) are notable
  • Domestic cricket tournaments involving having Major cricket status are notable.

But what about the

  • Domestic tournaments conducted in the associate and affiliate member countries
  • International Bilateral and Multilateral series among associate and affiliate member countries
  • Domestic tournament with minor cricket status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.186.124 (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering, which of Cricket external link templates members is the most coolest one? {{Cricinfo}}? That would be the best candidate for importing to Wikidata. I'm currently trying to add such IDs for all major sports and now I have got to cricket. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

My own impression is that CricketArchive is rather more comprehensive and reliable in its scorecards and statistical information than is Cricinfo. OTOH, Cricinfo has the advantage of having an archive of articles from Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, of which the cricketers' obituaries are particularly useful. JH (talk page) 10:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean by coolest? And what benefit do we get by having an external link id in Wikidata? If the external site decides on a database rebuild, all IDs could be changed, which would render the whole exercise pointless. {{cricinfo}} has over 5000 transclusions, {{cricketarchive}} has 2100. Both sites were listed in the top 100 linked sites a few years ago - see http://inkdroid.org/2010/08/25/top-hosts-referenced-in-wikipedia-part-2/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Pope (talk • contribs)
Well, Jhall1 kind of answered, what is cool. What benifits, The-Pope? We can better detect some copy-paste and some format errors, and in future we can cross-check information to detect errors here, on Wikidata or their website. Of course, all that is possible also now here, but Wikidata is better structured for such things. You can also use template without parameters, so that ID gets picked from Wikidata (as {{authority control}} technically works), but probably it's not this case. And other Wikipedias can get benefits. Anyway, you don't have to use those WD properties, I just asked, which IDs are the best ones and I got my answer. Thanks. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Flags & sorting issue

On List of England cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut, the against column isn't sorting correctly. I assume that it's the flags (particularly the flag of none & the old South African flag) that are causing the issue.

It was noted at the help desk, but no-one has responded there. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Joseph2302, you could try using the hidden sorting template: {{hs}}. I believe it's straightforward enough? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: corrected some of the flag templates, and that appears to have fixed it. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Does this chap pass GNG?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raju Rijal (2nd nomination) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 County Championship

Just a heads up that this page has been created. However, User:Ganesh591 has started it, and, well, how can I put this. I believe they have big WP:CIR issues. IMO it's in a state that needs more work to fix the errors than just to nuke it and start again... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at it for 1 minute, I've noticed that lots of it is just copied from last season's article, and as such it makes 0 sense. I think the teams sections is mostly correct, so if you trim it down to that and then work from there. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
They've also created 2015–16 Momentum One Day Cup which I'm tidying up, because some of the English makes no sense, and it often lists the fielding team first, for some reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: - many thanks for taking time to look at this. Much appreciated. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please check the fixtures they added? They added made up match and round numbers as results, so I reverted them- it's possible the actual fixtures were correct though. Happy to be reverted by an established editor, if they fix the issues.
Also, I've given them a final warning about non-collaborative editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Now they've as good as blanked the page. I've logged it at WP:AIV. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
And now they've been indefinitely blocked for vandalism and multiple accounts. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Cricket category at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to expand, this is about Category:South Asian cricketers who have acted in movies. I and another editor suspect that cricketer-actors are enough of a "thing" that the category shouldn't be deleted outright as most other contributors to that discussion think. I'd lose the "South Asian" bit - although Bollywood is going to be the main target, it would allow the inclusion of people like C. Aubrey Smith, probably the only England captain with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. And even the likes of Dale Steyn and Derek Pringle have had parts in films. It would probably need an article on the subject to save the category though - anyone fancy it? Le Deluge (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Brett Lee too :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.211 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Page move discussion of interest

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Time to say goodbye

Hello. I've decided after much deliberation to permanently terminate my membership of Wikipedia. It has reached a point where I no longer find it useful or productive and it's become a distraction, taking up valuable time that I need for other activities. There are a million things I could do on the site but I never will and it has to end sometime. Now is a good time to go.

The site has certainly grown since I started "when it wor all fields round 'ere". It has evolved in some ways, too, especially in terms of the manual of style and use of inline citations. Against that, it has not earned credibility and rightly so because it adheres to the ludicrous "anyone can edit" ethos which does not work. The ethos should be, as I've said all along, "anyone can register with a valid e-mail address". Then, if they misbehave or introduce crap, the e-mail address can be blocked. How much time and effort would that save for the admins? If readers could be assured that each article has been written by someone who actually knows the subject, without interference from cranks and morons, then credibility might eventually be achieved. Lets face it, that will never happen. The approach I've always taken is to treat the site as a hobby but with the proviso that everything I write or set up is for the benefit of the readers. Mistakes aside, every article I have written or amended has been done accurately to the best of my knowledge. All the work I have done on categories has had one purpose only: to facilitate subject navigation for the readers (I created the basic categorisation structure for cricket several years ago and have maintained it ever since).

Then there are the admins themselves. To be fair, some of them are really good and are up to the job because they understand people (man-management, if you like) and they have organisational ability plus, of course, common sense. Most are not up to the job because they lack real world qualifications or experience and stumble along, sometimes getting it right but more often not. Some, unfortunately for everyone else, are idiots who think that being a WP admin gives them "status" and they are just a liability and a waste of space.

As for projects, my verdict on these is that they do not work and should be scrapped. I have too often felt that I am a sole operative in the "cricket project". No one assisted me with categorisation; only a couple of people showed any interest in the project's notability and style guides, which were both written by me; only Moondyne ever showed any real interest in article assessment. Far too often, I was involved in battles with the CfD clique without project support. There have been other times where I have tried to support another project member, especially AA who had more than his share of frustrations, and no one else joined in. To be fair, there are several project members who usually weigh in at an AfD but there is much more to a project than rallying behind one player who made a single first-class appearance in 1937. My observations of the other projects, and the feedback I've had from people in other projects, strongly suggest that the cricket project is typical. Basically, there is little or no co-operation and too many people are content to be "members of the project" without making any worthwhile contribution to it.

Anyway, I said there are a million things I could do. I'll leave two of them here in case anyone wishes to pick them up and develop them. The first, which I have inexcusably neglected, is List of historically significant English cricket teams. This should be finished, if possible, and the concept should be applied globally with similar lists for all the other countries. The second is List of earliest references in English cricket which I first considered years ago and finally got around to creating last week. Again, this could be expanded and then the concept would also apply globally.

That's it. I know I've quit before and then returned but this time it really is goodbye and good luck. Jack | talk page 14:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. The WikiProject used to work very well. The collaborative work around The Invincibles FT project was amazing. But we've lost a lot of dedicated members in recent years - as have most WikiProjects I'm familiar with - and as a result, this place is fairly stale and unproductive, which is a shame. I think it's partly to do with the allure of Wikipedia beginning to lose its shine: Creating an article with an edit like this and getting it to this was really exciting, but when most interesting stuff has been created already and it's a matter of buffing up things or creating articles about 'old and obscure' or 'new and obscure', there's less to be excited about. Anyway, belligerent gnome, farewell and good luck. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Jack, you have been one of my truest friends on here, always sticking up for me, and others, when times were bad, always with a kind word to say, and always with one of the finest sets of turns of phrase on the project.
Thank you for standing by me through the bad times. You know where I am. Fare thee well, sir. Bobo. 03:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Somersetcricket

This user has been adding material directly copied from the Somerset CCC website to the biographies of current Somerset cricketers. I've reverted a few and have asked them to desist: the material is copyright and is also very close to PR. I'm not currently around very much, so if someone else could keep an eye on it. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that this account is Somerset CCC, though I could be mistaken. Harrias talk 12:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you are mistaken! ([1]) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Harrias: Could you username block them? I requested it at WP:UAA. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
That ping never worked, but they've been blocked now anyway. Harrias talk 08:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This report suggests your suspicions were probably right, as more recent edits have been under this name. Don't think there's anything malicious going on here, but there's a clear conflict of interest. Johnlp (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I pretty much live directly across the road from the cricket ground, so I might pop over and see if I can have a chat with him; assuming he is based at the ground, that is! Harrias talk 16:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
If he's at a loose end, maybe he could put some work into discovering the true identity of F. Marks. ;) Johnlp (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Frederic Marks; CricketArchive have updated their information, and it matches up with what the contemporary newspapers suggest. Harrias talk 20:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

DRS infobox parameter

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we please get more participants in this discussion? We currently have two people for and two people against the removal of both the "DRS" and "defending champions" parameters from the infobox. – PeeJay 20:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
And then there's the tournament song! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems like it's currently 4-0 against the song being there. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Note to interested readers: the discussion has become somewhat tangential (as evidenced by above). Go with caution. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

National team infobox

How come {{Infobox national cricket team}} doesn't exist? I just realised that England cricket team is using its own bespoke version of {{Infobox}}, but surely that leads to inconsistencies between the various national teams? – PeeJay 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Good spot - never noticed that before. I'd support a standard infobox. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Might be good to work on some consensus on what should be in it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking through the Test nations, they all seem to have the following fields:

  • First Test
  • Captain
  • Coach
  • Current rankings (all formats)
  • Best rankings (all formats)
  • Test matches/Tests this year
  • Last Test
  • Wins/loses and wins/loses for this year
  • Test status acquired

Should those remain? Are there any obvious fields that are missing? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There's already Template:Infobox Test team and Template:Infobox non Test cricket team, although both claim to be currently being merged. They seem to serve most purposes, although the layout isn't great imo. It might make some sense to merge them as an international team template - then there can simply be fields that aren't used for Test teams, say.
Wins/losses will need a lot of updating - or is this just for Tests? I'd say adding first ODI and first T20I would make sense as well - I'm assuming this is going to be created in order to add to, say, the Denarm team page as well as Test playing nations? In which case, status (as in full member, associate etc...) might be useful. If you look at something such as Denmark national cricket team then there's stuff there - with
Football ones having most caps and leading goal-scorers - there's a case to add the equivalents, certainly for Test playing nations. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The difficulty we have is the varying formats of international cricket, so if the template can accommodate columns of information, that present the same information across the formats, that'd be good. So, current captain, leading run scorer, leading wicket taker, most capped would be my suggestions. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Old Belvedere Cricket Club

Would someone from WikiProject Cricket mind taking a look at Old Belvedere Cricket Club and assess it. It's been recently expanded a bit so it probably no longer qualifies as a stub. The article still probably needs a bit of cleanup and there are some ongoing discussions about various things on the article's talk page, so any comments from some experienced in these kinds of articles would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is suffering from being used as a fansite. It needs a lot of trimming. I've made a start. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a closer look Dweller. Most of the unsourced stuff was recently added by an editor who's new to Wikipedia. I've been trying to discuss things with him on the article's talk page and he's been quite responsive, but it's all still quite new to him. I've been trying to find sources and do little bits of clean up, but I don't really know much about cricket. So, any comments or suggestions you might have would be most appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Russell Cobb

I don't get it. How can someone play 122 first-class matches as a specialist batsman, with such a mediocre record (no hundreds, average well below 30)? I appreciate that was a weak period for English cricket, but even so...? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Without knowing a great deal about the standing of Leicestershire and Northern Transvaal during the 1980s, I would guess that both were weak teams and Cobb just kept on doing enough not to be dropped. Maybe he was also an exceptional fieldsman, who knows. I've been working on West Indian players lately, and there's quite a few similar examples there even from the past few years – Romel Currency for instance had a first-class average of 23.27 as a specialist batsman for the Windward Islands, across 71 matches. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I know there's been batting average inflation, but even so, it really does beggar belief! Maybe his wage demands were low. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you're being a bit harsh on Cobb. He was an England Under-19 player and was one of a group of promising batsmen (Tim Boon, James Whitaker, Ian Butcher were others) who came into the Leicestershire side in the early 1980s, just after the Illingworth era of unprecedented success. Various factors went against Cobb. Chris Balderstone got a new lease of life after the age of 40 and moved up to become an opener, which was Cobb's preferred position; Nigel Briers, after half a dozen unsuccessful seasons, "came good" in 1981; the Yorkshiremen Whitaker and Boon got regular places, and it became almost de rigueur across the 1980s to have a Butcher in your county team if one was available. But he did play regularly in 1985-1987, made his 1000 runs at a respectable average in 1986 and captained the second eleven and coached too: to the extent that he was awarded a joint benefit with Phil Whitticase in 1997. He was also a Leicester lad at a time when Leicestershire seemed very reliant on imports. There is in any case a long tradition of batsman with long careers who appear to have under-performed by modern standards. Maurice Hallam (for Leicestershire) took 180-odd innings to reach three figures as an opener; Laurie Johnson, specialist batsman for Derbyshire, took 280 innings before a century came. Alan Ormrod was in the end a prolific and highly successful county batsman for Worcestershire and Lancashire, but early on he was unable to get beyond 72, several times getting out for that score or just below. There's probably a doctoral thesis to be written about the careers of players such as Jim Foat (Gloucestershire and a smashing field) or, from an earlier era, Graham Tripp of Somerset and Alan Rayment of Hampshire. Johnlp (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The MCCU matches

Is there a reason why Cricinfo is giving first-class stats in some of the current games and not others? Have some of these been deemed to be not first-class? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That is likely to be the case. I'm not sure why the distinction is drawn - Kent's match last year against Loughborough didn't have FC status; this years one did. The only difference that I can begin to see is that last year Kent played Australia in a FC match and this year they have no FC tour match. But that's utterly arbitrary and can't (surely?) be the reason for the difference. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Did the non-FC matches use non-standard rules e.g. used more than 11 players perhaps? I can't check myself as I'm at work. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Not as far as I can tell - here's the scorecard from last years Kent match. Looks as normal as anything to me. Are the MCCU limited a set number of FC matches a year perhaps? Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
IIRC, there's an arbitrary rule that the first two of a university's matches against the counties should have f-c status, but not the remainder. I'd guess that the rationale - such as it is - is that the counties are likely to put out stronger sides against them if the County Championship has not yet started. JH (talk page) 15:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes that's correct. The MCCU sides each play three matches against county sides a the start of the season. The first two rounds of these matches have f-c status, but the final round does not. ECB I believe I read somewhere that the rationale is as mentioned by JH. It is one of those strange things about cricket that irritates statisticians like myself! Would think it is more logical for either all or none of these games to have f-c status, but that's how it is. Bs1jac (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Australian cricketers

For info, I've now completed all the redlinks for individuals who played for Tasmania, with the exception of #26 and #136. Both CI and CA have no information on these individuals, apart from stating they played in one FC match. If anyone has any further details, or is feeling brave, please feel free to complete the set. I finished the Victoria list recently too, and I plan to go through the others as well. I understand how complex & time consuming these lists are to create, but if anyone can help complete the Queensland list that would be great. Or start lists for other FC teams from Test nations... :D Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well done, but before we go too far further on making player articles, should we look at standardising the list format? WA has FC, List A and T20 in three separate lists, with stats (that are a real pain to update). SA and Tassie (missing recent years) have similar tables covering all 3 formats, with NSW just a list, I think primarily FC only, but not clearly stated. Victoria has a FC only list (but 8 years out of date), and Queensland's has only 5 players! The Sydney Sixers seem to be the only BBL team with a list of players. Is there a featured list format from County cricket that is ideal to use? The-Pope (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Somerset or Yorkshire seem to be the best curated Counties as far as I can tell. I'm working on Kent stuff to bring it somewhere close where I can. In order to avoid multiple pages or pages with dodgy names I'm trying to put all in one place - to be honest the "distinction" is really minimal and I'm not a fan of multiple lists at all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The Australian tables created mostly by User:Roisterer (I pinched his format for Tasmania, but then used the English format for NSW) are much cleverer and more sophisticated than the English county ones, and if it's a potential featured list format that you want, then they're much closer to that. The county lists are all pretty much complete and up-to-date with FC cricketers, and most have addendums with people who've played List A or T20 but not FC. Four or five of them, including Kent, still have redlinks that some of us have been gently working towards eliminating (I'm not around much at present, but will resume in a bit, I hope). There seems little merit in concocting separate lists for the different formats when both the Aussie tables and the more makeshift county lists can cope with all the game formats without too much hassle. Johnlp (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
My plan had been to create as many tables as possible while also creating articles on the red inked cricketers but sadly I never have enough time (although I'm about to complete the list of Guyana cricketers). I'm happy to use whatever standard table we decide on. --Roisterer (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Personally I find the alphabetical lists - with the index at the top - much easier to *use*. They contain a lot less information but, frankly, that's what I'm looking for with lists like this I think - there's too many people involved in general to try to do anything very much more with them imo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with having the one list per team for all formats. If anyone knows of an easy way to get a list of players for X team from either CI or CA, then I can try and build a table from the results of that search. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
There isn't any really simple way that's going to be correct. CA will give you a list of all the players who have played for an individual team, but the list will contain people who haven't played first-class (or other forms), and the date span CA gives will be the first appearance on the team's books through to the last appearance, not the dates when games were actually played. A few people have tried to use these short-cuts with the English county teams, thinking they were being helpful, and it then takes a huge amount of extremely dull work to put them back in order. Presumably Queensland is the one that really needs something better than what we currently have: if people are happy with a NSW/English county-style list, I can probably get going on one over the next few days. Johnlp (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks John, that would be most helpful. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm surprised I haven't included lists of players from Australian FC teams somewhere... searching for the letter "E" for each of the FC teams from Australia will surely get you 90 percent of the players or more. I'm still taking a break from WP indefinitely though. Bobo. 23:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Great work there. If you plan to do Indian cricketers, you could start with the lists on this template. Those lists are not as detailed as the Australian ones though. The number of Indian first-class cricketers redlinks currently is too large (in excess of 10k). I'll try to create some more player lists of Indian first-class teams in the next few weeks. Dee03 17:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Dee. And thanks for your work in creating the lists. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: (and others): List of Queensland first-class cricketers is now built. There are 502 first-class players, plus a further 18 in an appendix who appeared in List A or T20 for Queensland teams without playing FC games for the state. Slightly more than half of them are redlinks, so there's a bit to go at there. Johnlp (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
That's brilliant! Thanks for your hard work in completing the list. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Match fixing page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotect request for the article Quinton de Kock

Since De Kock is in good form now during the start of 2016 IPL, there have vandalism occurring on his article for more than one instances during the last one week. So I request if the article can be semi-protected at least until the time when the IPL season is over. Arka 92 18:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Itz arka. Please log it here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:Lugnuts, seems like no admin is replying or deciding on the issue there in the logging link as you provided previously. Arka 92 19:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the vandalism has burnt itself out, so no action was taken. If there's another wave of it, then go back to WP:RPP. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

T20I ranking tables in the Scotland, UAE and Papua New Guinea team articles

A user called Fenopy has removed the T20I Championship ranking tables from the articles on the Scotland, United Arab Emirates and Papua New Guinea teams - claiming that they were pointless additions in the first place.

TBH, I disagree that they were pointless additions. And I'm fairly sure that the user who added them, Mmitchell10, had his/her heart in the right place. Bluebird207 (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I would support (re)adding them – the alternative is manually updating the article, which doesn't always happen. It's pretty standard to mention an international sporting team's ranking if it exists. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to add entire ranking tables to individual team pages. If ranking of a team is to be mentioned it should be done so in the lead and infobox of that article. Not by adding a template meant to be on ICC T20I Championship article. It looks like these tables are on all team pages now. Tell me this does not look pointless and ridiculous on a team page. A reader generally would want to know the ranking of the team he's reading about, not the entire ranking table to be presented in front of him.. If a section on rankings has to be added it would be best to follow something like this.. A person who wants to check the current rankings table can open the ICC rankings article of that format. Fenopy (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
"Tell me this does not look pointless and ridiculous on a team page."
TBH, I've seen far more pointless and far more ridiculous things in articles than three differently-sized tables side by side...
I suppose the reader would only really be interested in the ranking of the team that he/she is reading about, rather than all the rankings. But as IgnorantArmies says, the alternative to having the tables is manually updating the relevant parts of the lead and the infobox, which doesn't happen every time the team's ranking changes... Bluebird207 (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Updating rankings on each team page won't take half as much time as updating stats of one cricketer on their infobox. And there are thousands of cricketers with outdated stats on their infoboxes.... FIFA ranking changes more radically than ICC ranking but you still find football team pages updated with latest ranking. Also note that ICC ranking is limited to 10 to 15 teams whereas FIFA ranks around 200 nations. Currently most cricket team pages have the latest ranking updated in their lead and infobox.. So these tables are redundant and don't belong in the team pages. Fenopy (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
These are good points, I must admit.
But I don't think other users' opinions would go amiss here - we can't really reach a consensus with only three users involved. Bluebird207 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd very strongly support removing them from individual team articles for the reasons suggested. A see also or similar can then be used if necessary. If they were to remain in team articles (because we know the project loves it's tables) then the positioning needs to be considered. Certainly it shouldn't be the first section within an article - there are far more important things to write. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

So that's two in favour of removing the tables, and one in favour of keeping/re-adding them.
TBH, I can't definitively decide which action to support - I'd still be leaning towards keeping/re-adding the tables, but there is certainly a decent case for removing them.
Any more opinions? Bluebird207 (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that by keeping tables in you have a tonne of information which isn't relevant to the subject of the article. Can you imagine if the FIFA rankings, all of them, were on every football team's article? Why are we doing the same thing on WP:CRIC? It is, as IA says above, pretty standard to have *a teams* rankings on their page. But just that teams. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
"Can you imagine if the FIFA rankings, all of them, were on every football team's article?"
That's an excellent point - no article on a national football team would look good if it had all 200-odd FIFA rankings on it, rather than just the ranking of the team in question.
You've certainly strengthened the case for removing the tables (and got me leaning a bit closer to this action, too).
However, I still think one or two more opinions wouldn't go amiss. In particular, I think the opinion of Mmitchell10 (who, lest we forget, added the tables in the first place) would be greatly appreciated. Bluebird207 (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree, although sometimes getting opinions can be difficult. I wonder what would happen if we simply removed them with an edit summary directing discussion to here? If there's not a lot of opinion then I'd say WP:BOLD and try that perhaps? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. When I first came across the Test, ODI and T20I rankings tables they were shown on the pages for some countries, but not others, and some countries' pages which included them had them in clearly a wrong section, so I added them in to the missing countries' pages and/or shifted them out of the wrong sections, just to try and make things consistent. Personally I quite like having the whole tables there on each country's page, as it gives context to a bald ranking figure, but I'm aware they can look quite clumsy, and also as you say it means there's a whole load of info there which isn't directly the subject of the article, and it isn't normal in other sports to include whole ranking tables. Therefore if others want to remove the tables and at the same time insert the current ranking figures into the infobox, say like it's been done for England, then that's fine by me. Mmitchell10 (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that settles it, then.
The tables shall be duly removed - with pointers to this discussion in each corresponding edit summary.
Eyes will have to be kept on the rankings in each format as they change, however. Bluebird207 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how easy it would be to do, but on one of the football pages I keep an eye on there is the latest league table, but it only shows 5 teams (the 2 above and 2 below) using the following: { { 2015–16 Premier League table|showteam=XXX } } Could we change the templates to allow something like this (even limiting it to 1 team) so you could have a rankings section to show the 1-3 rankings for each team with the data updating from the relevant template Spike 'em (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 NatWest t20 Blast

Someone created 2016 NatWest t20 Blast yesterday (I think) but the article had, well, major issues shall we say. I've cut it down to the minimum for now, but I imagine the list of teams, coaches and captains needs checking as it's probably last years lot. I don't have time to do so just now. If someone who does have some time could take a look it'd probably help. Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

About time someone created that page! I was looking for it the other day. Py0alb (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

de Villiers

I'm not around too much these days, but happened to take a look at AB de Villiers yesterday. Its a bit depressing. The article is a mess: a combination of utter trivia and promotional fluff. If anyone is feeling brave, I think we really could do to sort the article out. I'll see what I can do as well. I'm almost scared to look at some other "big" articles. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, yes. The section about his wicket-keeping is particularly amusing. To be honest I'd start by removing all the tables - especially given that they date from 2013. Would anyone object to that sort of approach - there's just too much out of date stuff with little or no context. The article also suffers from a lack of a summation approach - there's lots of stuff been added without any thought about how the article might read in 6 months time, let alone three years. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

John Oscroft (cricketer, born 1846)

Anyone fancy creating this article? John Oscroft (cricketer, born 1807) was moved on account of the fact that John Oscroft (cricketer, born 1846) didn't exist. Career details here. John Oscroft (cricketer) will then need moving and turning into a redirect page.

Cheers in advance. Bobo. 07:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

On it. I'm creating John Oscroft (cricketer, born 1846) as a stub for now. Then I'll make John Oscroft a DAB, and redirect John Oscroft (cricketer) to it as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Cheers. I had both names in my players lists. There are more DAB-able names on my lists that none have been created yet but eventually they will. Bobo. 08:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

CfD merge proposal

Please see this proposal which is a by-product of the bowling articles topic above. I have no firm opinion on this merger proposal and will be happy to keep the deliveries category separate if that is the consensus, but if we are going to merge or redirect several bowling articles it might be sensible to address the category aspect too. Thanks. Jack | talk page 09:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Seamer (bowling)

I don't really know much about cricket I am only English but short sighted and usually about thirty yards away from the wicket doing the scoring (and it is very helpful when you have an umpire who insists on giving you tiny hand gestures as you're trying to mark it with double entry bookkeeping in the cricket book and run the mechanical scoreboard at the same time). Is "Seamer" a valid word. This is one of many famous "neelix redirects" that I have listed at RfD. It kinda makes sense and I can see the target is absolutely fine but I just can't recall off the top of my head whether the great Richie Benaud or anyone on Test Match Special like that actually called a bowler a "seamer", do they? If it's fine it stays, if it's called that in Australia or New Zealand or anywhere it's fine, it stays, I just can't recall ever hearing it. I think I have recalled people saying an "in seamer" and an "out seamer" depending on whether the spin bowling is clockwise or anticlockwise (depending of course on the handedness of the bowler and of course depending on whether you are looking from point of view of bowler or batsman) but I am just asking for a second check. Over at WP:RFD. Thanks in advance for your help, but I am on a sticky wicket with this one. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

To give you the exact link Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_23#Seamer_.28bowler.29. I presume a seamer is the male equivalent of a seamstress. There is some kinda of thread unravelling (excuse the pun) that needs to be done here one way or another. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain I've heard Seamer used (say on TMS - indeed, here for example. Whether or not Seamer (bowler) is needed in itself I'm not so sure - not a lot links there directly and I'd say adding Seam bowling to the dab directly might be better and then dealing with the one redirect that would be necessary? But I don't tend to go near RfD so it may be more usual to keep it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yup, that's probably the way to do it. Change it at the DAB as you say @Blue Square Thing: do you want me to do that or will you I don't mind just call the toss, but we better not get "run out" going across each other. Do it at the DAB first, then this can pretty surely go I should say, wouldn't you? Thanks very much for helping out. The Seamer (bowler) can stay as an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} if someone really insists on it but to my mind it is just clutter that hinders rather than helps search when we have that kind of thing. So far with Neelix redirects today I am about 78 not out. Si Trew (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll do the RfD and I am not being patronising I hope but I am a regular there so know how it "works" so just saying you don't need to go there and get thrown another googly from there, I'll do that. Who's gonna change the DAB you or I? It probably makes more sense if I WP:BOLDly do the whole lot User:Blue Square Thing doesn't it? Thanks for your help. Si Trew (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me - ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Done the DAB as you suggested, taken the (bowler) to CSD referring across, sit and wait for that to close and I will tidy up at the RfD. You've done enough I'll do the gnomework. Thanks for your expert advice. It's unlikely but if another cricket one comes up on the Neelix list may I call on you again for your advice? Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what you two are on about, but seamer is a common term in Australia. The-Pope (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
And is increasingly used in GB too. We have seam bowling and I would just assume that seamer (cricket) or seamer (bowling) should be simple redirects to that. Jack | talk page 09:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

2012-13 National One Day Cup

Hi all,

could anybody check if the name of 2012-13 National One Day Cup is correct as per naming conventions for cricket season articles? The matches of this season only take place in 2013. Thanks in advance! – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes a tournament/tour can take place entirely in one calendar year, but it is in fact part of the season that spans two years. Since this tournament took place in March 2013, it was technically part of the 2012-13 cricket season. – PeeJay 13:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Lob bowling be merged into Underarm bowling. I think that the content in the Lob bowling article can easily be explained in the context of Underarm bowling, and the Underarm bowling article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Lob bowling will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. See the discussion here. Thanks. Jack | talk page 12:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As no one has objected and the two previous editors of the lob bowling article agree with the merger proposal, I intend to go ahead and combine them in the next day or two. If anyone wishes to object, please do so soon. Deadline is close of play at the Riverside tomorrow . Jack | talk page 13:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Right, I've merged lobs into underarm by creating a new section into which I've pasted the entire narrative of lobs. This will need a thorough copyedit sometime because there is duplication with other parts of underarm and out of context in some respects. I'll add this to my list. Jack | talk page 14:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hamza Ali & Cricinfo problem

Hamza Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've noticed a problem with Hamza Ali on ESPNcricinfo. He has two profiles- one with his first-class appearances and one with his List A appearances. If you look at his CricketArchive profile and the sources in the article, it's the same person. Does anyone know how to contact ESPNcricinfo to get them to correct this? Also, can someone add his List A appearances to that article? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

About a month ago, I sent both Cricinfo and Cricketarchive an email note about Wingfield Fiennes, a fairly obscure 19th century Oxford University cricketer, because both have his death date as 10 August 1923, whereas his probate record and the Death notice in The Times indicate that he died on 10 October 1923. Cricinfo responded with a standard format note of thanks; Cricketarchive did not respond, though they have replied in the past when I've sent in information or corrections. Neither has yet actually corrected anything, mind. Cricinfo also spells his forename incorrectly as "Winfield". For cricinfo, I used the feedback form that is at the foot of every page. I wish you luck. Johnlp (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, I emailed them as suggested. Hopefully they'll respond. I got a response a few weeks ago for a minor change on CricketArchive. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
There was a similar example of an international cricketer (I can't recall which one, but I think it was either a player for Oman or the UAE) and he had two profiles. Confusion arose when a scorecard said he'd made his international debut, but had infact played in that format several times before. A quick email to Cricinfo and they merged the two profiles. As a note, they don't tend to reply to emails, but they usually fix things like that. And checking the two links above, they have updated the former. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh FAR

I have nominated Harbhajan Singh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

This article is a bit of a mess since YM left all that time ago. I'm afraid I've had to nominate it for FA review. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yearly English cricket season template(s)

After a minor kerfuffle or two, there's been a bit of a discussion at User talk:Racingmanager#Date templates on cricket season articles about the ways in which we use date nav box templates at the bottom of articles about English cricket seasons - and the ways in which the articles we have on cricket seasons relate to the County Championship articles we have as well. There are a couple of proposals I guess:

  • replace the nav box templates such as Template:English cricket seasons 1890 - 1918 with one auto collapsed template. At present we have two examples at User:Blue Square Thing/sandbox#English cricket seasons template, one of which starts from 1825 and one which goes all the way back to 1726. This would allow us to replace 8 nav templates with just the one - at the cost of it being a little thicker. By using auto collapse, however, any overhead on the page should be minimal. The benefit would be that it's possible to easily jump to anywhere along the timeline using the proposed versions. In terms of colour, the blue just happened to be the same colour as another template I have on that page just now.
I'd be interested in any thoughts on this - including the colour choice! Would people mind awfully replacing what we currently have?
  • the relationship between County Championship articles and the relevant English cricket season articles is patchy at best with relatively little cross-referencing. For example, the 1910 County Championship makes no reference to the 1910 English cricket season which makes just passing references to the former, including no wikilnks. This is not always the case - the 1900 English cricket season article contains a full Championship table and both Championship and FC leading stats, although there is no link to the 1900 County Championship article. I don't quite understand the logic of having articles which seem to compete. I've done some work on the 1909 English cricket season today to try to use the main article hat note to encourage some cross-fertilisation. I don't think it's done yet, but it's a start.
I'd be interested in thoughts on what I've done and if there are other ways forward. One idea to kick around (in the, now traditional, pre-match game of football...) is possibly redirecting Championship articles to the season articles where either the Championship article doesn't exist or, potentially, in every case if there's a feeling that we could get all the information we need in one article - certainly for seasons from a long time ago (although even in this millennium we have relatively little written on most seasons).

Sorry for dropping another long request for comments on here. It's motivated mostly be a desire to not annoy anyone by simple changing stuff too much! Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. Repeating what I've written at the Racingmanager page, I think the BST template is excellent and should be introduced. I think we should merge all CC articles into the relevant English seasonal articles. This will have the added benefit of giving equal importance to the unofficial championships which were, after all, historically important. This is a really good initiative by User:Racingmanager who has spotted a flaw in our English cricket coverage. Jack | talk page 19:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Done - the new template is at Template:English cricket seasons and can be inserted by using {{English cricket seasons}} in place of the templates that already exist. I've done two seasons to check it out - 1726 and 1906 (just to be awkward...). I will work through when I get time, but that won't be until tomorrow evening at the earliest.

Re: merging seasons and CC - that's a work in progress for now. I might be tempted, firstly, to add redirects for the CC seasons which don't have an article and then work through thinking about merging where a separate article is not as appropriate.

I've copied the discussion above to the template talk page as a record. Hope that's OK? Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Once you've replaced the smaller templates with the new all-encompassing one remember to nominate the unused ones for deletion. Jenks24 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Bowling articles

I happened across these yesterday. We seem to have a bit of a mess of different articles - there's one on Leg spin, one on Leg break and one on Wrist spin - as well as specific articles on the Flipper (cricket) and Googly and another article on Spin bowling. The same sort of thing happens in other types of bowling as well.

I'm not sure what the rationale is for so many pages - some of which at least seem to overlap (Leg spin and leg break for example). Can anyone shed any light on the subject and/or suggest any rationalisation which could occur?

At the same time the articles are generally lacking decent citations it seems. Anyone got any good sources? Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A single article "Styles of bowling (cricket)" might be better, with sections on the different types of delivery that could be linked to as required. As for citations, there's a glossary in Barclay's World of Cricket that might help. Another possibility is the MCC Cricket Coaching Manual. JH (talk page) 15:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking one article for leg spin and all their types of delivery, and one for off spin and all their types of delivery. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There are far too many articles about the different types of spin bowling. Category:Bowling (cricket) contains 34 articles and my suggestion for each of these is as follows:

There may be other articles about bowling that are not in the category. For example, the leg break article wasn't in it and I've just included it. There are about 30 bowling articles in Category:Cricket deliveries. Some are in both categories. It's a mess that needs sorting. I would get rid of the deliveries category and put everything that doesn't get merged into the bowling category. Jack | talk page 15:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok - I'm thankful it's not just me seeing this! I think maybe we could cope with an off-spin (or finger spin) and leg spin (or wrist spin) article with the subtypes merged there - possibly seeing how we go with these. Seam and swing could probably do with having their own main article but the article on fast bowling could probably respect these. And I've just discovered by following the trail through that we also have articles on outswinger and inswinger (could be sections inside swing presumably?) and off cutter and leg cutter. All of which is getting a bit much for me :-)
I'll have time to have a think about this - and maybe even try to sandbox something or other - in the next couple of days I hope. Not entirely sure where to start but the list will be a good point I imagine to begin with. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm in broad agreement with Jack's list – I think the main questions will lie around whether to have a single article for spin bowling or to split it up... I would imagine if it's the latter we might have to go with four articles rather than two, to include left-arm orthodox spin and left-arm unorthodox spin, as there might be too many differences to include them with off spin and leg break. Certainly the likes of "doosra" and "carrom ball" should be merged into their respective parent articles, whatever they turn out to be.
Could you explain the rationale for merging Off theory into Spin bowling? Py0alb (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Evidently a mistake. I must have copied the one above. Have corrected it now. Thanks. Jack | talk page 17:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that Off theory should be standalone, and should probably be updated with it's use by bowlers such as Stokes and Jordan in ODIs and T20s (wide yorkers). I also agree that at a minimum wrist and finger spin should separate, and whether they are then split into left and right arm is probably worthwhile too. The-Pope (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I can see a case for an article on that - but surely we'd merge Corridor of uncertainty into that article then? Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


I agree with the principle, but not necessarily all the details. Wrist spin and Finger spin deserve their own articles, with their various "variations" and their left arm equivalents merged into them. Leg theory and Off theory could be included in the bowling tactics section of bowling (cricket). Do all the different bowling statistics (average, economy rate, strike rate, etc) really warrant their own standalone articles, or could they be merged into one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs) 08:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think a bowling statistics article would be good. Maybe a batting one too, come to that, though there are some statistics articles already and perhaps one of those could accommodate? I looked through the deliveries category (see merger proposal notice below) and it has these articles which we need to decide on. For the most part, they are specific bowling terms and the articles can support little content beyond the definitions and a bit of history. This is the list for consideration:

Some of them, like slower ball are pure terminology. Others, like yorker have more substance. Jack | talk page 11:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


would be my suggestion. Most of them have content that is worth keeping, and there should be redirects or links from disambiguation pages to the relevant section of the merged article Py0alb (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good to me as a starter for ten. We'll have to wait for BST on this as he's obviously going to bring forward a proposal. Jack | talk page 14:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I would argue that Googly should be its own article. There is a lot that could be written about it, it was rather a different concept than plain old-fashioned wrist-spin, and it could be expanded quite a lot. If I get round to it one of these days, I've probably got enough to make a decent fist of it myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Sarastro on this as the googly (or bosie) is a significant delivery in its own right and I think the yorker is just about in the same league. I would vote for both of these to have individual articles. Hello, @Blue Square Thing:, do you have a proposal for us yet? No rush though, mate, I'm actually more concerned about preserving the topic from the Miszabot or whatever does the archiving nowadays! Jack | talk page 19:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Been watching way too much cricket to think too hard about it! Might, given the rain, have a change today though... Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please to include contents of Template:Cricket deliveries‎ in the survey. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 05:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Afd and multiple cricketers with the name Abid Ali

Please see this AfD. Any help in identifying which source has the correct info would be welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

International Cricket in ccxx / ccxx-xy

In summary articles such as International cricket in 2016 are there guidelines as to what constitutes an International Tour and what is a Minor Tour?

As an example in the above, there are Tours to Ireland and Scotland by both Afghanistan and Hong Kong. The Afghan games (which are all full internationals) are listed as International Tours, but the HK ones as Minor. I moved the HK to Scotland tour from the 2016-17 season, but is it to the correct place?

Similarly, I notice in 2015–16, HK's tour to UAE is listed as Minor, but its T20Is in UAE against other Associate teams is Neutral International.

Is there a cut-off that if a tour involves any non-Internationals (usually 1st class games instead of Tests) that it is Minor? It would seem strange to claim that HK going to Ireland is minor in comparison to Scotland just because they happen to also play a long-form game that is not a Test, as well as limited-over games. Spike 'em (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess if no-one else has any interest in this then I am the de facto arbiter on these things. I've decided that anything not involving England is a Minor Tour ;) Spike 'em (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It does seem quite random on how it's split up. I've never understood it fully myself, and the main people who insist on the split do very little editing outside of that table! Two Test sides playing each other, def. international tour. So Ireland vs. Afghanistan is an international tour, but Ireland vs. Hong Kong isn't? No, me neither... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


On a less flippant note, my suggestions (in order of my preference):

  • Only put tours where one (or both?) of the teams is a Full-member of ICC in the International Tours section and anything else in the Minor Tours
  • Put any tour which includes an international game in the International Tours section (would need heading changed)
  • Only put tours consisting of solely of internationals in International Tours and any mixed series into Minor Tours
  • Separate a mixed tour into 2 parts

I'm not aware of the difference between International Tour and Minor Tour being a construct other than on wikipedia. The series listings page on cricinfo splits into International Tours, International Tournaments, Youth Cricket and Women's Cricket[1] Spike 'em (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It would seem best to split them into International Mens and International Womens I guess - and then have mens tournaments, women's tournaments and then, I suppose, the minor tournaments (such as the ICC div 5 thing). I might even go for separate tables for the tours and the tournaments and it might be possible, in these days, to put the mens and womens all together in one part of the table. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I like the simple solution - do away with the splits on international and minor tours and combine them all into one. "Minor" currently seems to be WP:OR in defining it. Do the same for the tournaments too (so the 2016 would just have one section with the WI tri-series and the WCL). I've also voiced the option before of spliting out the women's fixtures into their own article. There's tons on the International cricket in 2015–16 page, no doubt this will grow (which is great for women's cricket). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
That makes far more sense! I'd support that, though I'd be inclined to add columns to differentiate between Tests / ODIs / T20Is and FC/LA/T20s. Any views on that? Spike 'em (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
How does this look? User:Spike 'em/sandbox It is made slightly easier in that all the T20s played are internationals (and were in previous season, which I'll try to adapt next) Have split Womens cricket into a separate table Spike 'em (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I probably wouldn't bother making it sortable - when you try and sort any of the columns some unexpected things happen with he Tournaments stuff which makes odd things occur. Either that or knock the tournaments stuff into a new table anyway? Other than that, it looks easier to use for starters. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that when I played with it a bit. I merged the bits of the table that was there already, which has the same issue. Will fix that when I have a chance later. Spike 'em (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I've made a start on 2015-16 in my Sandbox. There are a number of "Neutral Venue" T20Is (all in UAE) where there is no nominal home team. I'm inclined to put these in the main table rather than create a separate section for them. Also, the tables in the main body of the article for these series list Team 1 and Team 2 captain, but it's not clear which one is which, so at a later date I'll go through and rename the headings with the team names. Spike 'em (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Those look good to me, Spike. Nice work and thanks for taking time to re-jig them. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The current format is the best one... Great job done by all of you guys... Congratulations... 😃 Cricket246 (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Special mentions definitely include Spike... Wonderful job done... 😃 Cricket246 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:, @Spike 'em:, @Blue Square Thing: On more detailed observation, a certain aspect came to my mind regarding the re-jig and I want to point that out... The table, although good, looks excessively long so can we do something like putting all tours involving full members tours under international tours and rest under minor tours... I think that's the actual format in Cricket and that would be a proper and decent classification of tours... I request everyone here to give a thought to this proposition... The current format is very nice but is too long and also FC and LA are not officially internationals so those should be under minor tours... Please consider this aspect everyone... Thanks... 😃 Cricket246 (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was my 1st suggestion! The reason I started along this route is that it seemed that adding a First Class game to a tour that otherwise contained ODIs / T20Is made it move from International to Minor, which I don't agree with. Is there a difference between the current series of ODIs / T20Is between Zimbabwe and India and the forthcoming ODIs between Ireland and Afghanistan? As Lugnuts says, if we start imposing criteria on what should appear then it is OR. The number of tours that are listed that don't contain any "Internationals" seems to be limited to 1-2 per season, which hardly makes it worth creating a separate section for. Spike 'em (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
What are peoples thoughts on adding a T20 (i.e. not officially rated as T20I) column to seasons where it is not needed? On the one hand it will make different seasons consistent, but I think it is better to remove it when it would be completely empty and add it in on as needed basis Spike 'em (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd say keep it as one table - it's not too long and it avoids potential problems with determining what a "minor" tour is for starters - and then having teams in both tables. FC need to stay in the table certainly - have no firm preference for regular T20 games. Probably not I'd suggest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Spike 'em: That's fine... As of T20 if any column is not needed then I believe it's better to delete it... T20s are not played generally internationally and when they do play they are internationals... For both 2016 and 2016-17 no T20s are happening so that column is not needed... But one thing which I still feel is that full members tours are technically full international tours like Zim v Ind whereas Ire vs Afg is technically a minor tour as no full member is involved... As per ICC as well a tour is a full international tour when both members are full members otherwise it should be considered a minor tour... So I think it's better if we follow the simple criteria that all tours where both teams are full members should be under international tours and the rest all minor tours... It simplifies so many things and the classification also becomes very clear... Please consider this... Cricket246 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Do the ICC state that anywhere? If there is a rule we can definitively follow then I'll have a look at doing that Spike 'em (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that on the ICC site. I thought you were aiming to avoid multiple tables or tables split into apparently arbitrary sections? I'd rather, for example, see all of Ireland's matches in the same section of the table from a usability pov. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've not seen anything either, was more wondering if there is any definition that could possibly be used. I cant see a way of splitting it that would always keep a given team in one section so the current way is probably best. On related point, are there any criteria on which games to include in the first place? Spike 'em (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's a common convention in Cricket to consider a tour as a full international tour only when both participating teams are full members... Any other tour is a minor tour... Officially it might not be written anywhere but its a very common convention... Its acceptable as well I think as it helps in maintaining a consistent approach and also provides a compact manner to classify tours... It helps in avoiding clutter and sometimes we do need to go by common convention don't we? But at the time I do agree with both of you that we need to have a clear definition of the type of tours first... I'll try my level best to find out more on this... Cricket246 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

To give an outside view on this topic I just can describe the way how we do it on the german WP: We try to ignore any game in this kind of tables, which belong to the Intercontinental Cup and the World Cricket League. This eliminates most FC and LA games from the list (we have the tournaments like in enWP below the Tour tables in an extra table). Otherwise it would be double counting. Every game, which is included in such tours and has ODI/T20I-Status, which belongs not to these types of competitions, are then included into the Tour table (we are certainly not very consistent with this, but we work on this). Visits by touring Full Member Sites to Associates, while they Tour another Full Member are treated as Tour games (as well as any other FC or LA game) in the Tour articles, but we add them to the Tour table in the overview article (we have in gWP more issues with relevance criteria, so we have to minimise the number of articles in a language area where Cricket is practically unknown).--Maphry (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
We could define minor tours as the tours in which the matches do not have International status i.e FC, LA and T20 matches. In International cricket in 2016-17, there are 2 tours which have such matches, if we split them into a minor tour table, we wouldn't need the FC and LA columns in front of any of the other tours. The page would look cleaner that way. Sidhant99 (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Current and future cricket series". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 14 June 2016.

Another Bill O'Reilly move proposal

There has been another proposal to make Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) the primary topic of Bill O'Reilly. Feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Cooper Associates County Ground?

The Somerset county ground article was moved after a COI request: I've got a feeling there's a policy against moving sports venue articles for sponsorship renames like this but can't find it. If there is, someone might like to move the article back. (After the initial move, I moved it from "The..." to without, as per usage on the club's own site). PamD 10:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

eg Odsal Stadium, officially Provident Stadium, formerly Grattan Stadium. PamD 10:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Pam. I am reading site procedures and this one is I am thinking what you are looking for. Please to see the example it is including that McLaren is the name and not Vodafone McLaren Mercedes. Thank you, Pam. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 10:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi again. I am unable to complete reverting the move back to County Ground, Taunton. I am seeing a message that I should "ask an administrator". Is there an administrator, here, please, who could assist? The reason is WP:COMMONNAME. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 10:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
It's strange that the move wasn't able to be reversed on a redirect with a single revision in its history, but an admin will sort it out, I guess. I wasn't sure about the article name, I renamed it since I found a source for it but I don't really care either way. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, nyuszika7h. I am not sure of how this is not working exactly but I am thinking there is now what is called a "double redirect" after PamD was making the change to remove "The" from the title. Thank you, nyuszika7h. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 16:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved it back to County Ground, Taunton, following WP:COMMONNAME and our convention: Riverside Ground isn't titled "Emirates Riverside", nor is Rose Bowl (cricket ground) titled "Ageas Bowl" etc etc. Harrias talk 20:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposing cricket article for deletion

Hi. Please to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizwan Niaz Raiyan. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 15:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

New editor creating non-notable bios

Please see the list from here down of cricket biographies created by User:Tamil_100 that are at AfD. I've gone through them all and think most of them are delete (there's a couple of keeps from ICC WCL matches). I've pointed the user in the direction of WP:NCRIC, as I think they're acting in good faith in creating this articles. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Chittagong Vikings article

Please to be aware of this. I am unsure of process and am so far placing tags and banners. As I am knowing something of the subject, though with limited access to verifiable source, I am seeking to resolve but may be needing assistance. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 12:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I am thinking the problem is resolved now, I have rewritten one section and removed much more. The content came directly from Chittagong Kings, the violation done originally in that article three or four years ago and not being observed. The Kings were rebranded Vikings last year and we had two articles, almost identical and both breaching copyright. I have redirected Kings to Vikings. I am aware that violation has been a problem before in Bangladesh articles. A task force is being formed and we will be trying to stop this happening. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 14:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of Bangladesh Premier League captains for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 07:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Cricketers who played Australian rules football (and vice versa)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football#Cricketers who played Australian rules football (and vice versa) and comment there. StAnselm (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodhew (Kent cricketer)

AFD proposal being made to delete article about first-class cricketer. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 16:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bowlers with career strike rate of 50 or less in Test matches

Is this a useful thing? Do RS (and I don't mean in-depth statistical pieces) commonly establish who the great bowlers are by their strike-rate? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's relatively unusual in RS but becoming less so. And it's certainly arguable that the measure is a better reflection of a bowler's quality than is average runs conceded per wicket. JH (talk page) 15:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
As ever, thoughtful and useful feedback. I'll leave it alone. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I corrected this link in four or five places this morning but can't do it at "History of Cricket". Padlock on it. Went there from the NCRIC page. The link to MCC Laws is https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/ but you've got http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/ and that's wrong. Can one of you access the history page and make the correction? And it probably needs doing in lots of other places too.

I was doing research into hitting the ball twice as a dismissal. Saw it happen in a club match other day. Batsman blocked ball, it bounced in front of him and he smacked it out of the field. Out! Idiot. Never knew the law came in because someone was killed by a bat! Thanks. DilMendis82 (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done I updated the reference on History of cricket. Joseph2302 08:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey, thanks, pal. Good stuff. DilMendis82 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

More U19 cricketers who don't meet N:CRIC at AfD

Hi all. I've logged some AfDs for articles created by User:Sohanpandey. These are U19 cricketers who don't meet WP:NCRIC. The full list can be found on his talkpage. I've dropped a note there too explaining the notability threshold. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Just curious here but looks like these guys are all internationals so why don't they meet this "notability threshold"? Is there an age limit or something? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DilMendis82 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to do the signature. Trying again. DilMendis82 (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
They are all international U-19 players. U-19 cricketers don't meet the standard of WP:NCRIC, which says "has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level"- U-19 isn't the highest international level, as the proper senior team is the highest level. Joseph2302 08:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Right, I get you. And these matches are not first-class, either. Never have been, I think. But matches played by our A and under 23 teams (Sri Lanka, we are), they are usually first-class. I suppose most under 19s aren't into first-class at their clubs. Thank you again, pal. Much obliged for your answer. DilMendis82 (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
For some reason, the deletion discussions are not appearing under the list of project-related deletion topics on the main page. Here they are in full:

I'd be grateful if just a couple of editors comment on each one, to save the inevitable seven-day tumbleweed relistings. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It would have been much better if these nominations had been bundled together. I know bundling is sometimes done badly, but here it would have made things a lot easier. StAnselm (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I would have done the bundling option. I found the first few and though they were stand-alone NN cricketers. Then I opened a can of worms and looked at the page creators contributions and found a ton more later in the day. Thanks to those who've commented on each AfD. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Harry Trott at TFA on Aug 5

Just a note that to celebrate the 150th anniversary of this extraordinary man's birth, his biog will be on Main Page.

Massive thanks to Crisco 1492, Brianboulton and Dank, our helpful and expert team of TFA co-ordinators, and especially to Ian Rose, who kindly gave up that date, which had been slated for one of 'his' articles.

I've just realised that on that date, Trott's beloved Australia will be playing a Test match, making the date all the more resonant.

Thanks all. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think Trott might be spinning in his grave over Australia's performance in last week's Test v. Sri Lanka. Maybe they'll do him prouder this week. Brianboulton (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Aamir Ashraf

The only reference in this article refers to a different player ! GrahamHardy (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

CricketArchive has this:[1] Which, a bit more searching on cricinfo leads to [2] He clearly exists as a player, but no idea on which of Aamir Ashraf and Amir Sofi to use as his correct name though. Spike 'em (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Searching for both names on google, I would say Amir Sofi is correct, which may need an edit of a redirect page at Amir Sofi
Both of these [3] [4] mention Amir Sofi in pre/post match reports on games which appear on both the cricinfo and cricket archive pages. I can't move Aamir Ashraf due to the existing redirect, so what is best way to do this? Spike 'em (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I've attempted to move pages around, hope it looks ok now. Spike 'em (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Players/395/395530/395530.html
  2. ^ http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/player/947811.html
  3. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/ranji-trophy-201516-jammu-and-kashmir-versus-kerala-match/article7711261.ece
  4. ^ http://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/ranji-trophy-2015-group-c-saurashtra-outplay-jk-to-seal-quarters-berth/

Short Form Cricket

A new account https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/BjornBriggs has apparently created an account purely to post promotional material on this page, probably from someone connected to the firm in question. I have reverted and issued a warning, but he reinstated his material.

Please can an admin post a 2nd warning, and if necessary, a topic ban?

Thanks Py0alb (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/2003 Cricket World Cup Final/archive2

I'd like to take this article to FAC. Suggestions pertaining to structure and prose are most welcome. Thanks, —Vensatry (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ian Botham

Would any of the experts on here be willing or able to take a look at Ian Botham? A whole bunch of problems have been identified and banners added re: neutrality, additional citations, peacock terms, NPOV disputes, unsourced terms etc & says "This article needs attention from an expert in Cricket.". My cricket knowledge is limited so could anyone help?— Rod talk 10:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

National Cricket League requested move

Hi. Please see the discussion here. Any input would be welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Bangladeshi women's cricket team in South Africa in 2016–17

This series seems to have disappeared into the ether. Does anyone know anything about it being cancelled (or if it ever really existed in the first place)? Bangladesh Women are now playing in Ireland, so I guess the tour got replaced, but I can't find any links to explain it. Spike 'em (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if someone could have become confused and got it the wrong way round, as checking on CricketArchive I see that the South African women's team is due to tour Bangladesh in January. JH (talk page) 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The current reference goes to a dead page. Web archive shows it as once being a tour of South Africa. As there's nothing about it ever taking place, or indeed being cancelled, I'd recommend it goes to AfD. If there were lots of issues of a tour not going ahead, like there has been in the past with other tours, I'd lean towards keeping it, but it looks like it simply never should have been created. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I did see that the page was proposed for deletion when it was created. I've found other pages on the web that state the schedule as is on the page, but not sure which came first. Can't find anything formally announcing the tour nor it being called off. Spike 'em (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been bold and redirected it. If anyone wishes to take it to AfD, feel free, but I think this is the best least-worst solution! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree the article shouldn't exist. Joseph2302 18:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
According to Cricinfo New Zealand Women tour South Africa in October, and South Africa Women tour Bangladesh in January 2017. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Durham?

Anyone fancy having a go at an article about Durham County Cricket Club in 2016? Strikes me as a story which should be told - anyone with paper based sources up in the frozen north perhaps? I'm a little too far away to know too much detail - just think it's got to be an interesting possibility if anyone's interested... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

ICC Rankings changes

As mentioned at ICC Test Championship, whenever the top spot in the ICC Rankings is about to change, there is an edit war with people changing the rankings and team pages before the ratings / rankings are offically updated. The ICC don't update the ratings until a Test Series finishes, though as the formula used is well known it is possible to say what will happen at the end of a series. Taking today as an example, India won the 2nd Test (of 3) to go 2-0 up against NZ. This means that even if they lose the final test, they will gain enough points to overtake Pakistan at top of ratings. Other news sites (including ESPNcricinfo) then publish stories saying that India have moved top.[1] Their rankings page, however, still shows Pakistan in first place.[2] Do we use the primary source[3] or allow updates from reputable secondary sources? As a compromise, I've added a line saying that India will go top at the end of the series, but am opening this up to debate. Any thoughts? Spike 'em (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

ICC have now added a story making it clear India will go top but aren't there yet.[4] Spike 'em (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Series win hands India No. 1 ranking". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
  2. ^ "ICC rankings for Tests, ODIs, Twenty20 & Women". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
  3. ^ "ICC Test Rankings". icc-cricket.com. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
  4. ^ "India guaranteed No.1 Test spot". icc-cricket.com. ICC. Retrieved 3 October 2016.

2016-17 Australian Cricket Summer

While checking for missing endashes in article titles, I stumbled about 2016-17 Australian Cricket Summer. Is this kind of article endorsed by this project? – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to copy every result verbatim from the individual articles, and should be more of a summary, such as 2015 English cricket season. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Which title would be appropriate then, 2016–17 Australian cricket season? Also, could somebody mentor the still rather new user working on this article a bit so that the content is up to your guidelines? (I would do it myself, but as you can tell from my username, cricket is not exactly my expertise ^^;) Thanks in advance! – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 10:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I've moved it to the correct title, although I'd support deletion if it went to AfD. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
What's with all the little house icons? I mean, I get that they're supposed to indicate the home team, but there's some inconsistency there between the icon and the (H) at various points in the article. Personally, I don't think any of it is necessary; after all, you can tell which is the home team by the stadium the game was played at. – PeeJay 02:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
For info, this is now at AfD. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources for height

I monitor certain template errors and I sometimes notice people breaking a cricketer's infobox with an invalid height entry. A current example is this diff at Jake Ball (cricketer). I usually click a couple of the references and/or external links to see what they say but I have never found a source verifying a cricketer's height although I don't spend much time on it. Is there a source that often lists height information? Or are heights usually blank for cricketers? Assuming no source for Jake Ball, I guess the broken addition should be reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

CricInfo, which is likely to be linked as an external link on a wiki player page, sometimes has height information. It doesn't seem to for Ball but does, for example, for Will Gidman, a county teammate of his. It's possible that a team's website might also have height information if it has decent player profiles on it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The Playfair Cricket Annual and the annual Cricketers' Who's Who both have heights for English county players; the latter is, I think, based on a form filled in by the players themselves, though whether this makes it more or less accurate I'm not sure. Playfair 2016 has Mr Ball at exactly six feet tall. Johnlp (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all. Someone who has seen the reference should fix the article infobox by entering an integer value for "ft" and "inch", such as heightft=6 and heightinch=0. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I've put Ball's height in, but can see no quick way of putting a reference for it into the Infobox cricketer template. Perhaps someone cleverer than I could see if there's a way to do it. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Lord's move request

I've requested Lord's Cricket Ground be retitled to just Lord's, feel free to weigh in here. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Miss Willes

The originator of roundarm bowling is traditionally reckoned to be Christina (sic) Willes. User:Tagishsimon moved her article to Christiana Willes because Oxford Dictionary of National Biography spells her name thus. I couldn't check her baptism and birth records online (the free sites keep getting timed out) but the death record in https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2JYR-KTP does provide her first name as Christiana. Wonder if we should change the other references to her name (in articles on round arm bowling, women's cricket etc) to Christiana too. Tintin 18:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've got a subscription to Ancestry.com so I have been checking out her information: annoyingly, the baptism records aren't available to view. But she is on the census in 1841 (in Kent), in 1851 (in Tormoham in Devon), in 1861 and 1871 (living in London). In the first three instances her name is clearly written as "Christiana"; on the 1871 census it could be either "Christiane" or "Christiana". So it does indeed look like Christiana is the correct version of her first name. Richard3120 (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It was more than that they merely "spell her name thus". They go out of their way to insist that the cricket historians are wrong on that point. And I have further cold water to pour on the whole proposition, from the doubters at ODNB. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
If that is indeed her name (which ODNB suggests it is), then we should probably change all the links to her name on Wiki. Joseph2302 20:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
In other news, there is one Elizabeth Hamilton (cricketer) missing a biography - she was active in the White Conduit cricket club between c.1785–1788 - [2] (subscription needed, though email me if you want the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

In John Major's book, on page 127, he points out that Christiana Willes was the correct name and, as he says, "not 'Christina' as is often thought". I don't know if he used the ODNB as his source or if he found the name somewhere else. Older sources use "Christina", probably because they've all copied each other after Nyren or Pycroft or whoever made the original mistake. I've added Major's book as a source in the article. It is generally believed that roundarm was originated by Tom Walker, not by the Willes family. Jack | talk page 14:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Tintin 07:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

List of matches umpired by Marais Erasmus at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Cricket lists at AfD

Hello, please see these discussions:

Thank you. Jack | talk page 17:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There is also this one too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pairs in Test and first-class cricket. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 09:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

On a related point, what do people here think of World records in International cricket? It's completely unsourced, and seems rather redundant, but I'm not sure whether to nominate it for deletion or not. StAnselm (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It's redundant, just stats and just a massive list (with way too much use of flags as well). Needs to go I'd say (but then I tend towards delete when there's a lack of prose involved). Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World records in International cricket. Thanks. Jack | talk page 21:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This one is Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. I'm scheduling November, and I only had two dates that had anniversaries for sports articles ... this is one of them. There are actually three featured articles available on Keith Miller (Early life of Keith Miller and Keith Miller in the 1946–47 Australian cricket season are the others), but since the other "Australian cricket team in England in 1948" articles have been in good shape, I feel safer with this one. I couldn't find any dead links in the refs. The original nominator is long gone; could someone have a look at this and see if it's still up to snuff? - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The reference for the statistics in the infobox doesn't actually reference the first-class stats at all, just the Test matches. There are references to all the stats for the tour at CricketArchive, but four separate pages are needed - unless it would be OK to simply reference the page I've linked to in the infobox? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Dweller. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Sarastro1. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Now I understand. I'll try to find some time for this later. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Erm, the infobox stats look fine to me? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been sorted now - was an odd source and I couldn't figure the best way to deal with it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I fixed it and forgot to mention. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League and discuss the merits or otherwise of an obviously inactive mini-project. Thanks. Jack | talk page 15:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Another three AfD bundles

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Test cricket matches results (1877–1914). Same reasons given for all the above cases: WP:NOTSTATS, WP:MIRROR, WP:DIRECTORY. Thanks. Jack | talk page 19:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

And see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Test matches played between Bangladesh and Australia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/England cricket team Test results (1946–59). Both of these bundle a number of similar articles, all there for NOTSTATS, etc. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 19:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Lists of One Day International matches at AfD

Please see the following discussions:

Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 18:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

And one more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Afghanistan One Day International matches. Hopefully the last one, all created by the same person and I've dropped a note on their talkpage to ask them to stop. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Presumably the Test match lists need to go to AfD as well then? Essentially the same argument can be used to delete those as well, yes? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
If they breach any part of WP:IINFO, especially my personal WP:NOTSTATS bugbear, then I agree. Jack | talk page 16:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
There's some listed on my talkpage. Can someone nominate them please? Joseph2302 17:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian Test matches which bundles nine similar lists for deletion. I've kept these separate from the India one as a specific discussion has begun there. Thanks. Jack | talk page 18:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - makes sense. Are there T20 ones as well then? I've not come across any, but... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The answer is that, yes there are... Sub-continent based in the main - a search will get there. I've not time to AfD them right now - Masterchef to watch and so on... E2A: also List of Test matches played between England and India etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Another AfD bundle

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh and Hong Kong in One day Internationals. This one contains the entire contents of Category:Lists of One Day International cricket matches which should perhaps be deleted too, really. Thanks. Jack | talk page 12:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

And another one....

Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh and Kenya in Twenty20 Internationals. Same rationale of WP:IINFO and its component parts especially WP:NOTSTATS. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 12:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

More Bangladesh lists for AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Cricket League Twenty20 records, which I think will be the last. For now, anyway. Thanks very much to all those who have helped with identifying these statistical issues. Jack | talk page 13:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Another AfD bundle

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Test cricket matches played between Australia and India for the same reasons yet again... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

2017 ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier at Afd

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 13:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_80&oldid=1110993047"