Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 84

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

Archive 80

←

Archive 82

→

Recruit new editors for your project?

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

List of players who have scored 20 Test Cricket hundreds at AFD

Found this recently created list that fails WP:NOTSTATS. See discussion here. – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"Became"

<thread moved from no-ball discussion above --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)> Another MOS point : can we add a prohibition on phrases containing the word "became" when referring to player's achievements unless there is no other alternative? A load of entries say things like "Joe Bloggs became the sixth player to take four hat-tricks in Tests". What is wrong with "was"? Spike 'em (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a problem with using "became" instead of "was"? I personally think "became" reads better in most cases. TripleRoryFan (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This isn't an MOS matter, but English. Became reads much better to me. This might be an ENGVAR thing. To me, "was" implies that he is no longer, which may or may not be the case. "Became" implies correctly that he was then and may or may not be now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think "became" is overused. If someone is the nth person to do something then they will always be the nth person. If it is setting some sort of record that could be beaten, then "became" may be more appropriate.

e.g. on current Ashes series it has:

Alastair Cook became the first player for England, and the 8th overall, to play 150 Tests.

I think was is appropriate here, no-one else can be the first English player to reach 150 Tests

David Warner became the joint fourth-fastest Australian to score 6,000 Test runs
Steve Smith (Aus) became the joint second-fastest and the youngest batsman to score 6,000 runs in Tests.

These are beatable in future, so "became" may better here. Spike 'em (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that was is appropriate, but I think became is more specific because it makes it clear that the event happened during the series. Like before the series he hadn't played 150 Tests, but afterwards he had. Just saying "He was the first player for England to play 150 Tests" could seem like you're just saying he was in general rather than specifically referring to him reaching the milestone during that particular season. Like Dweller said I don't think it's a MOS issue at all, and personally I think that "became" usually reads better. It is repetitive and it seems like people just copy-paste sentences and replace the names and numbers, perhaps it wouldn't be as bad if people mixed up the sentence structure a bit and included more than bare-bones info on the milestones. TripleRoryFan (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

All the above are recorded as notes on a particular match, which I think makes clear that the occurrence happened during the match in question. It should probably be better to add actual reporting to the article in question rather than just having match templates and then the milestones can be fleshed out rather than a 1-line bullet point. Spike 'em (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep I think the big problem is the bullet points instead of fleshed out information. Something like "Steve Smith (Aus) scored the 6,000th run of his Test career. He was the youngest batsman of all time to reach this milestone." as part of a paragraph of information on the match. TripleRoryFan (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark Benson's role in the contentious Sydney Test versus India

Please see this revert by Aircorn.

This relates to Benson's umpiring in this horrendously controversial Test match: Second Test, 2007–08 Border–Gavaskar Trophy. Aircorn describes the small paragraph as "undue and non-notable controversy". I'd say, if anything, that the material I wrote was underplaying the controversy, which ended with effigies being burned on the streets of India, Bucknor being removed from umpiring the next match and Cricinfo's assessment was that Benson was lucky he wasn't scheduled to umpire it, or he'd have been removed, too. Note that the Indian manager is quoted as calling both umpires incompetent.

Wisden's tour review said: "A series of shocking decisions by umpires Bucknor and Mark Benson had an unsettling effect." and the match report cites several Benson errors, notably when Benson gave out Ganguly without consulting Buckner, an action which particularly incensed the Indians.

Happy to be argued down, but I really disagree that it's "undue and non-notable". In fact, it could arguably be expanded. Views please, including (especially) from Aircorn. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the more appropriate venue to debate single instances is at the umpires page not here. One of the roles I have taken on is WP:STEWARDSHIP of sports official articles. As you might imagine they are often the target of vandalistic edits. These range from obvious vandilism (which is usually reverted before I get to it) to more subtle changes (like altering their place of birth). WP:Undue is probably the major problem though as upset fans tend to blame the officials when their team loses and like to make it known here. Sometimes this is appropriate, but often it is just the routine complaining from players, coaches, media and fans when the team they support loses.

Umpires make hundreds of decisions during the course of a match and many have had long careers. the vast vast majority of these are correct and we should not highlight the rare instances when an incorrect one is made at their biography page (see WP:BALASP). It is better to present any criticism that does not have an impact on their career (i.e they are stood down or rebuked about it from the ICC or other major neutral governing body) at the series, game or tournament page. The focus there is much narrower and therefor it can be presented with the appropriate amount of commentary to be given context without running into undue concerns.

I have been working through cricket umpire articles for a number of years now and have within the last couple of years moved onto most other sports. In the process I have developed an essay and a taskforce. I would welcome expanding this discussion to a wider one involving how we represent criticism in cricket umpire articles and still comply with our BLP policies and guidelines. I brought it up here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 70#Umpires in 2011, but don't know of any more recent discussions. While I feel my current approach is the best way, I would be happy to change this if necessary to be in line with a more current consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As for this specific example. There is a hell of a lot of detail at Second Test, 2007–08 Border–Gavaskar Trophy (too much for my liking, but that is an argument to be had at that page). It is mentioned at Steve Bucknor and this is appropriate as it led to him being stood down from the next test. However there is no evidence that this had any ill effect on Bensons career apart from hearsay and opinions, which we do not present in BLPs. A small paragraph may be appropriate if Bensons article was more developed and able to take care of the undue concerns, but the onus to do that is on those looking to add the criticism to do this. I would suggest that the current mentions in the biographies are more than appropriate given the state of the articles. AIRcorn (talk)

Wisden

Wisden has recently been changed from a redirect to Wisden Cricketers' Almanack into a DAB page, breaking 1165 links. I've opened a WP:RM discussion, see Talk:Wisden, and invite other editors to contribute. Narky Blert (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion!

Of Dale Steyn. OK, so that was from 13 years ago. But when looking at the very early edits to top international players such as Steyn and AB de Villiers, I stumbled upon User:CricketBot's page. Looks like that bot (and the bot-owner) have been inactive for more than a decade, but it's interesting how some of the basic tasks are now the common standard across this project (test -> Test, for example). Are there any mass clean-up tasks that editors have found or thought about that could be done by a bot? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, we all know the CSD criterion "it's a stub" - apparently being an international cricketer is not enough..regarding mass clean-up, seems like agreement to change "No ball" to no-ball above..would need to be done Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I fix links to DAB pages for a living. I'm pleased to say that nothing has jumped out at me from any cricket article as something which could benefit from bot attention. Narky Blert (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

William Ford

List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players says that William Ford (W. J. S. Ford) played for GCCC 2005-2010. The link is to a DAB page. I can find out nothing about him. I suspect either a garbled name or a fake entry. Can anyone help solve the problem? Narky Blert (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A W. J. S. Ford played for Gloucestershire's under-14s and under-15s in 2008 and 2009. But he appears not to have progressed into more senior cricket. I'll remove him. Johnlp (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

TY, sounds good to me. Narky Blert (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, what a surprise! WJSF was added with a misleading edit summary by an IP editor who has done nothing else. Narky Blert (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on achievements and awards boxes

Following on from the above discussion, I'd like to invite more editors to look at the issue of biography articles of cricketers containing sections for achievements and awards. This was the example given in that discussion. Does this violate WP:NOTSTATS? Should these sections be included in articles? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the above. The project appears to have a consensus against adding these to biographies, but there are only a handful of participants in the discussion. Ideally, I'd like some opinions from people not attached to the project, for a neutral view. Here's another example from a cricketer who made a Test century today. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think issues are that much serious that we should mass remove them. They all need decent prose and suddenly they will start making sense. It is true that they are WP:NOTSTATS but if we explain them then they will not. We have FLs on cricketers achievements but all have good prose. If they were lists full of stats then I would support but not here. @Gihan Jayaweera: so they can participate and can acknowledge that whenever they will add these stats then they will explain them. Thanks. Störm (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: for their view. Störm (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment What I have to say is, the particular awards are internationally accepted achievements to rate their importance in the cricket world. So, citing them is a useful note to the article of the player and I don't think it is useless. Some players like Tendulkar, Jayasuriya, Ponting, Gilchrist, and Dravid, they have separated achievement articles. We all know they are legends in the game. To add that caliber, adding their achievements and awards is important.

Thanks. Gihan Jayaweera talk 7:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gihan Jayaweera: We acknowledge that these achievements are recognized, but what we're saying is WP:NOTSTATS is a policy, so if you're going to be adding these to every article you must include prose to give them context. The difference with featured lists like List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar is that they have a lot of prose to give context and further information about the achievements, which almost none of the articles with tables at the bottom have. While I'm not opposed to including these achievements in the articles, I think it's better done within the body of the articles or with prose explaining why it's important that they be included and adding more context to explain how significant their achievements are. As it stands, indiscriminantly adding them for every player without context, you'd assume a player like William Porterfield was a better cricketer than Marcus North because he has more international centuries and man-of-the-match performances. Even though almost all of Porterfield had the advantage of less competitive innational selection (being Northern Irish rather than Australian) and his achievements were almost all against other associate nations (weaker opposition than the Test playing nations Australia usually plays), neither article has any prose to give context and explain the significance of their achievements so you can actually understand where they stand. Do you understand that it is Wikipedia policy that "articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." TripleRoryFan (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. MoM awards are arguably WP:TRIVIA and definitely, per NOTSTATS, indiscriminate information at least and so in breach of WP:IINFO. I have no problem with them being mentioned in the narrative if the player's performance in a given match was especially outstanding but, really, they are of no benefit the reader and they should not form a prominent part of the article. I entirely agree with the points made by TripleRoryFan above. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Support removal Agree that the MotM awards are trivia. They add no real value to the article and any outstanding performance(s) can be mentioned as prose in the body of the article. The same with the over-bloating of adding table after table to show a century in one format, a five-wicket haul in another, some other milestone in yet another table. Here's a pretty bad example of adding in tables for the sake of adding them in. And they fast become full of over-specific esoteric wording that doesn't help the reader. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Conditional Oppose I think that information doesn't violate NOTSTATS if it can be conveyed in a way that supplements the core prose of the article, as a secondary focus. That's the big question though, can it consistently be conveyed that way? In some cases it might work, in others it wouldn't. Ultimately, I think a case-by-case basis is the best approach here. South Nashua (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Conditional Support. I agree with much of what South Nashua has written immediately above, but fall off the fence in the opposite direction. I think there may be occasions when the notability of this kind of information justifies its display in this way, but in a lot of those cases – record holders, serially successful players, etc etc – we might more usefully look at spin-out articles, often in the form of lists. Essentially, however, WP should remain as a narrative encyclopedia and far too many of these sections have very few entries or have not been updated. There are even sections entitled "Test match centuries by..." which contain only one century, and that's just silly. I'd also plead for some restraint on colour schemes: South Nashua is right that these things, if they exist, should be a "secondary focus", and screaming fluorescent colours do nobody's eyeballs any favours. Johnlp (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Building on what I said and what John said here, with these "marginal" statistics, such as a player with just one century, placing that statistic in the article's infobox would be more than fine. No need to place it in the article's mainspace unless it's significant. South Nashua (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

So what's the consensus here? I'm not used to how these sorts of things work but nobody has commented here for over a week now and I'm not sure how to proceed with player articles that have the stats in them. TripleRoryFan (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

TripleRoryFan RfCs stay around for 30 days; then they are closed with an outcome which will decide that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Agree with jack. If they are important, they can be mentioned in description of the player's career. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral.I am not against the man of the match and man of the series awards to be posted in each and every cricket biographies as I think according to my point of view those navigation boxes add beauty to the articles as it is our tradition that we have been doing in Cricket related biographies. But on the same time, the man of the match award boxes would cover the 3/4th or 2/3rd of an entire biography meaning that the particular cricketer's achievements in international cricket can be identified through the number of man of the match and many of the series awards earned by that player. There are some articles which have been devoted to the Man of the match awards earned by some of the greatest cricketers in the international cricket separately for example List of ODI awards for Sachin Tendulkar who has earned about 63 Player of the match awards in ODIs, the most by a cricketer in a single format. If the conclusion of this debate is delete so the above article should also be deleted. I at least propose to go with Player of the Series award rather than Player of the Match according to the convenience. Thank you Abishe (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It depends - if there's a table then there needs to be prose to put the table in context. If the contents of the table can be better summarised in the prose then there's no need for the table, but that's not always possible. So, some tables may be appropriate in some cases, although only, I would suggest, with a solid prose introduction of some kind.

If there are going to be tables of stats and awards then I would prefer that they were in an appropriate place in the article. Too often I'm finding sections added to the end of articles, which seems to be leading to too many sections in articles. If there were a statistical summary section that would be more helpful than just a set of different sections thrown on an article.

Interesting to note that today's featured article (Ian Johnson (cricketer)) has a single table and a graph right at the bottom but nothing else in terms of tables of awards, centuries, five wicket hauls and the like. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Even in other foreign language wikis, these Infoboxes are available in Cricket biographies Abishe (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that that's a direct copy (and a v recent one btw) of the English language wikipedia page. Formatting and all. There's one extra source in the En language one - the one that references something in the infobox. It's a direct copy so that's why the tables have been copied across. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This was moved to the archive before it was closed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Listed at RfCs for closure at ANI. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

William Ford

List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players says that William Ford (W. J. S. Ford) played for GCCC 2005-2010. The link is to a DAB page. I can find out nothing about him. I suspect either a garbled name or a fake entry. Can anyone help solve the problem? Narky Blert (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A W. J. S. Ford played for Gloucestershire's under-14s and under-15s in 2008 and 2009. But he appears not to have progressed into more senior cricket. I'll remove him. Johnlp (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

TY, sounds good to me. Narky Blert (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, what a surprise! WJSF was added with a misleading edit summary by an IP editor who has done nothing else. Narky Blert (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A doubt regarding a cricketer turning out to be Professor

I recently created an article related to an Irish cricketer, Alice Stanton (cricketer) who was born in 1960 and has played in 3 Women's ODIs. I also noticed that there was another person with this same name who is an Irish Professor. I found a source which was the only source that confused me. The source which was released in 2017 stated that the Professor, Alice Stanton has come forward to support Cricket Ireland and the women's cricket in Ireland. I wanted to know whether the cricketer later went onto become a Professor after retiring from international cricket. The cricketer is 57 years old and the face of the Professor was similar to the age of late 50s. But I couldn't verify the birth dates of both cricketer and Professor as the Professor's birth date was unavailable. So I couldn't find any actual conclusive evidences to prove that Alice Stanton is a cricketer as well as a Professor. Please help me out with this issue Abishe (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say they are almost certainly the same person; using her CV on the RCSI site matches the years up nicely (looking at when she completed her courses at university compared to the date of birth given on CricketArchive). CricketArchive also lists her as "Alice Veronica Stanton", while her publications are "Stanton, AV"; further tying up here; where she is listed as "Alice Veronica Stanton" for her publications too. Harrias ^talk 11:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thanks for clearing my doubts regarding this and thank you for taking some time in analysing this. Abishe (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just a word of warning: although the evidence does point towards them quite possibly being the same person, without a source explicitly confirming it then you're veering into original research (WP:OR) and synthesis (WP:SYN) territory. So I don't think we can justify putting it into the article yet. Jellyman (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Abishe: props both for having doubts and for raising the issue. I am convinced that they are one and the same. User:Jellyman is nevertheless right: unless a WP:RS source says that they are the same person, for Wiki purposes they are not. (You can sometimes get away with a WP:NPOV footnote, saying that these persons or places may be the same. I sometimes use that technique for historical references – but never use it for things which are potentially checkable, as this one is.) Narky Blert (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I query whether Alice is "a former Irish woman", as the article states. I assume, without additional evidence, that she is still both Irish and a woman. Narky Blert (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

MOS - No ball

Should we add an entry to the Style Guide to formalise how we write No ball (in a similar vein to Test match). I've seen articles with a mixture of "no ball", "No ball", and "no-ball". As mentioned on the No ball article, both the Laws and ICC Playing Conditions use "No ball" throughout. If nothing else, I think the usage across the project should be consistent. Spike 'em (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

A bit of research shows that ESPN Cricinfo seems to prefer "no-ball" as do the Guardian, Times & BBC. The Telegraph uses "no ball". (I did a quick search to see how they reported Tom Curran's non-wicket in the Boxing Day Test). Feel free to check your preferred news source. Spike 'em (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

In a similar vein the Laws / Playing conditions also capitalise "Wide", "Bye" and "Leg bye" Spike 'em (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd go with no ball in lower case per MOS:CAPS given the inconsistent capitalisation in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup. "no-ball" or "no ball" though? Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No-ball works best in an encyclopaedia, where we don't (shouldn't) wikilink every occurrence and readers unfamiliar with the sport are helped by the hyphen, which makes it obvious we're not saying that something isn't a round object. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this makes sense. I think the Laws use "No ball" to differentiate an illegal delivery from a ball other than the match ball in sections like 26.2.2 : "no ball other than the match ball is used for this practice" Spike 'em (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If we do adopt no-ball as the standard because of usage in most sources, then we should move the article, as per WP:COMMONNAME.Spike 'em (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

though there is already a redirect from No-ball to No ball, which should make any initial linking easier. Spike 'em (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Are we agreed then? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm agreed - "no-ball" is clearest, used most etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Support "no-ball". It's clearest. It's also least likely to confuse people who don't know the game, because it shows that the term has a technical meaning. (Imagine a baseball fan coming across "no ball" for the first time.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved I have made the changes agreed here Spike 'em (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 Under-19 Cricket World Cup squads

Anyone care to join me in moving the player names in 2018 Under-19 Cricket World Cup squads into the usual squad template (i.e. the one used in 2016). I'll take a crack at Group A in the next day, but if someone could share the workload it'd be appreciated! All squads here. Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

it would be nice if cricinfo put all the information on the squad page, but will see what I can do! Spike 'em (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

3 down with spreadsheet open to do more later. Spike 'em (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Superb work, Spike. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Series averages

I remember as a kid when a Test series concluded, the sports newspaper/magazines like Sportstar publish the player series averages. It helps the reader to conclude who fared well, who failed in the series. For example, Bancroft failed in the recently concluded Ashes while Anderson was the best English bowler in series, etc. Shouldn't we incorporate series stats included in our Test series articles, like this?--Chanaka L (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You could, and I think that would be a good idea, but you would also have to make sure you include prose to sufficiently explain it so that you don't breach WP:NOTSTATS. I'm sure there are plenty of sources that don't just have the stats like cricinfo but also put the stats into context. TripleRoryFan (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

For major series, cricinfo always does a player ratings article (as do most major newspapers), which generally mention the players averages, so plenty of sources out there Spike 'em (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep WP:NOTSTATS very firmly in mind. Ask yourself a couple of questions. (1) Can I get this info easily elsewhere, e.g. off CricInfo? (2) Why would anyone want to read an article which just duplicates CricInfo? Narky Blert (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

We have previously done this in a few articles (see here) and I think it would be a good idea. – Pee Jay 09:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Batting average

Anyone think that the article batting average should be split? Currently contains both baseball and cricket, but really mostly two separate topics lumped together. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems sensible as it's basically two independent articles merged in one at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

So I was curious and looked through the years, and as you'd expect from U.S. bias the article was only about baseball from 2001 to 2004 until this... So there are a lot of links to it but I think 99% from it being in Template:Infobox cricketer and Template:Infobox baseball biography Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd back splitting them out, I guess should get raised at WP:BASEBALL too. Both Batting average (cricket) and Batting average (baseball) exist as redirects, so is it worth amending the major templates / infoboxes to gain an idea of what else is left linking there? Spike 'em (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Posted note at WT:BASEBALL. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I posted on Talk:Batting_average#Discussion_on_splitting too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing. See how-many redirects have to be fixed (probably fix them before splitting) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

On the amending templates part : unfortunately the main baseball one {{Infobox baseball biography}} does not directly embed Batting average, rather the names of / links to statistics are inputs to the template, so each baseball article will need to be redirected individually (and 22k pages transclude it). I guess scripting this could be possible, but it's not something I've ever been involved with. There are a similar number of articles which use {{Infobox cricketer}} (which is locked so I can't amend to test it) Spike 'em (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I support the splitting of this article into two and having the batting average a disambiguation page. This seems like a sensible approach. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Any discussions regarding an articles content should be based at the article in question, not at a wikiproject. This is especially true if the article has multiple wikiprojects attached to it. Exceptions may be made for content that covers multiple articles if there is no other obvious place to house the discussion. It is alright to link to the discussion from here or to ask for advice regarding an article, but if you want to propose a split then consensus on whether to go ahead with it or not should be started at Batting average not here where it will be lost in the archives and requires editors to watch a page which discusses a lot of content of little interest to them. If you read the talk page at batting average there is already a discussion regarding a split (another reason to keep things centralised) and some valid points against doing so were raised. AIRcorn (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason I brought it up here is to get some input and so the discussion doesn't die- batting average talk page is quite dead, and that proposed split discussion was about 5 years ago.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The way to do this is to direct traffic to the article by leaving notes here and at the baseball wikiproject. It will still have the same effect. Having the discussion here is highly inconvenient. Just now my watchlist has filled up with 17 entries related to Peta Taylor that has nothing to do with batting average. I need to take extra steps to look at the article and the previous discussions. Not to mention this will eventually get lost in 84+ pages of archives and any future editors who come across the article will have to waste lots of time searching for the relevant discussion. There is no advantage to hosting the discussion here and this is not the first time this has happened. The only reason I am watching this page is because an editor decided to bring a simple content dispute here. If this is standard practice at this wikiproject it needs to stop. BTW I have no problem with your first post as you were asking advice. Once that was received then a more formal proposal should have been started at the articles talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Courtsey ping to Dmmaus who made that crucial edit and, glory be, is still around to be thanked. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a comment over on the article's talk page. I'll just add here that the fact that the article's talk page is not active is a sign that very few people think splitting the page is an issue that needs to be pursued. It's nice that there are virtually zero people expressing the opinion that content on "my sport and that other sport I don't care about" needs to be kept separated. -dmmaus (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Peta Taylor

Ianblair23 has made changes related to the article on Peta Taylor, and is now filtering them into other associated articles. The birth date, place of birth and place of death have all been changed based on a single reference. The problem is that the reference [1] used to make these changes is incorrect and refer to a Peter Taylor, not Peta Taylor. Ianblair23 has made these changes without discussion on the talk page, nor left any edit summary either (a persistent problem with this editor). I'd appreciate some assistance in dealing with this issue before it gets out of hand. - Morphenniel (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

the 2 links on the page refer to a Mary Isabella Taylor (nickname of Peta) with a DOB of 11 July 1912. WP:V requires a source for information, so unless you can provide one which provides otherwise, then his change is valid. Spike 'em (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The article seems to be completely wrong, unless there is a different Peta Taylor. It states that she played in the first Women's Test. The cricinfo scorecard links back to the "Peter Taylor" page, but I assume this is a typo on cricinfo for "Peta Taylor" Spike 'em (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't wash. The ESPNcric reference clearly states Peter Taylor, and the nickname "Peta" is not even there. If this article is considered to be reliable, then why can't is get the correct spelling for her name?? Therefore, this reference is unreliable, and the information given in the article that has been there un-challenged since 2006 should remain. If you revert back to the version that has been changed by Ianblair23 then you too are guilty of using an un-reliable source. - Morphenniel (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:V insists that facts are proven, so the unless you can provide a source which shows the current page is correct, then I would support the change to what is on both cricinfo and cricketarchive. Is there some other Mary "Peta" Taylor who is notable for playing in the first Women's Test? Spike 'em (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's take a deep breath here and calm down. Right so, Mary Isabella Taylor was a female English Test cricketer who played in the first women's Ashes series in 1934. She seems to have gone by the nickname "Peta". At WP:CRIC we use two reliable sources for all cricket Wikipedia articles, namely ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive. Now what happened was when the article was created in November 2006 by User:Jguk, this is what the CricketArchive page was displaying. As can be seen, it shows the biographical information that was in the article I found it earlier today.

The first capture in the Internet Archive for her ESPNcricinfo profile is in August 2011. This has born in 1912 in Wimbledon. The Cricket Archive page is updated in June 2011 to match the details of the ESPNcricinfo entry. Fast forward to January 2018, and both databases are still showing this information. (ESPNcricinfo and Cricket Archive) (Note: Unfortunately, Cricket Archive became a subscription only database last year, the latest wayback capture was in March 2016.)

Now, clearly there is a mistake regarding the Peter/Peta name. I have emailed ESPNcricinfo regarding this and hopefully they will rectify this shortly.

Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, but the issue here is that the source which you have used to make changes is unreliable and unsourced. The ESPNcric website does not provide a reference for its information, and it has used the name Peter, not Peta. Fundamentally, your view that what is on the internet is correct is a flawed view of how WP:V works. Reliable sources are considered to be those that have been published (i.e. books, magazine, journals, newspapers etc.) and, most importantly, have "... a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Clearly ESPN has issues with the last part of that sentence which I took from WP:SOURCES.

Provide a better source which supports the content you want to use then. Spike 'em (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but you are ignoring the Cricket Archive entry which has the same biographical information as ESPNcricinfo. As the article stands at the moment, no reliable sources back up her biographical details. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, all evidence points to the cricket archive entry being used as the initial source. That has now changed, so I feel it is fair to update the article here. I also think there is a bit of WP:POINTY here. Unfortunately the article creator is no longer active to get their input. It is also notable that the criket archive page now refers to her as Mary Taylor (was previously Peta Taylor), so perhaps a page move is in order too. Spike 'em (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Spike 'em, it's pretty clear what has happen here as I outlined above. If you could please make the appropriate changes to the article that would be greatly appreciated. I don't want to fall foul of the WP:3RR rule. As I also stated above, I have emailed ESPNcricinfo regarding the error which hopefully they will address. As for her nickname, this link is already in the article. I cant find anything else at the moment. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, before I make the change, WP:PUBLISHED mentions online sources in the same breath as printed ones: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online". Spike 'em (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that ESPNCricInfo is anything but reliable. They work with Wisden, every cricket board, and a lot of researchers to record virtually everything. They never publish their sources, as normally they are the originators of getting the information from the primary source (the game). For information from pre-World War II, it's not surprising that there are errors, updates, new information found - as was likely the case here, some time between 2006 and 2011 they discovered they had her details listed wrongly. Records were transcribed, lost, newspaper reports often politely only referred to surnames, not first names, especially for women. And here's an article (from the time) that refers to her as "Miss MI Taylor" and from Wimbledon, not Miss MS Taylor from Kent. No idea about the Peter/Peta/Mary issue, but there is no reason to doubt ESPNCricinfo. The-Pope (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

IPL 2018 Retention

I observed that for many IPL teams list of players retained for IPL are added in their 2017 season wiki page. This same mistake is present for all IPL team pages except for SRH, CSK & RR. Sagavaj (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on achievements and awards boxes

There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles. There does, however, seem to be a pretty clear agreement from most participants that swathes of numbers or lists of awards, empty of content or context, are not appropriate for Wikipedia, and that where sections for achievements/awards are included, they should be more than just a basic list, being a means to expand and add value to the article. fish&karate 11:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following on from the above discussion, I'd like to invite more editors to look at the issue of biography articles of cricketers containing sections for achievements and awards. This was the example given in that discussion. Does this violate WP:NOTSTATS? Should these sections be included in articles? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the above. The project appears to have a consensus against adding these to biographies, but there are only a handful of participants in the discussion. Ideally, I'd like some opinions from people not attached to the project, for a neutral view. Here's another example from a cricketer who made a Test century today. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think issues are that much serious that we should mass remove them. They all need decent prose and suddenly they will start making sense. It is true that they are WP:NOTSTATS but if we explain them then they will not. We have FLs on cricketers achievements but all have good prose. If they were lists full of stats then I would support but not here. @Gihan Jayaweera: so they can participate and can acknowledge that whenever they will add these stats then they will explain them. Thanks. Störm (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: for their view. Störm (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment What I have to say is, the particular awards are internationally accepted achievements to rate their importance in the cricket world. So, citing them is a useful note to the article of the player and I don't think it is useless. Some players like Tendulkar, Jayasuriya, Ponting, Gilchrist, and Dravid, they have separated achievement articles. We all know they are legends in the game. To add that caliber, adding their achievements and awards is important.

Thanks. Gihan Jayaweera talk 7:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gihan Jayaweera: We acknowledge that these achievements are recognized, but what we're saying is WP:NOTSTATS is a policy, so if you're going to be adding these to every article you must include prose to give them context. The difference with featured lists like List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar is that they have a lot of prose to give context and further information about the achievements, which almost none of the articles with tables at the bottom have. While I'm not opposed to including these achievements in the articles, I think it's better done within the body of the articles or with prose explaining why it's important that they be included and adding more context to explain how significant their achievements are. As it stands, indiscriminantly adding them for every player without context, you'd assume a player like William Porterfield was a better cricketer than Marcus North because he has more international centuries and man-of-the-match performances. Even though almost all of Porterfield had the advantage of less competitive innational selection (being Northern Irish rather than Australian) and his achievements were almost all against other associate nations (weaker opposition than the Test playing nations Australia usually plays), neither article has any prose to give context and explain the significance of their achievements so you can actually understand where they stand. Do you understand that it is Wikipedia policy that "articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." TripleRoryFan (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. MoM awards are arguably WP:TRIVIA and definitely, per NOTSTATS, indiscriminate information at least and so in breach of WP:IINFO. I have no problem with them being mentioned in the narrative if the player's performance in a given match was especially outstanding but, really, they are of no benefit the reader and they should not form a prominent part of the article. I entirely agree with the points made by TripleRoryFan above. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Support removal Agree that the MotM awards are trivia. They add no real value to the article and any outstanding performance(s) can be mentioned as prose in the body of the article. The same with the over-bloating of adding table after table to show a century in one format, a five-wicket haul in another, some other milestone in yet another table. Here's a pretty bad example of adding in tables for the sake of adding them in. And they fast become full of over-specific esoteric wording that doesn't help the reader. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Conditional Oppose I think that information doesn't violate NOTSTATS if it can be conveyed in a way that supplements the core prose of the article, as a secondary focus. That's the big question though, can it consistently be conveyed that way? In some cases it might work, in others it wouldn't. Ultimately, I think a case-by-case basis is the best approach here. South Nashua (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Conditional Support. I agree with much of what South Nashua has written immediately above, but fall off the fence in the opposite direction. I think there may be occasions when the notability of this kind of information justifies its display in this way, but in a lot of those cases – record holders, serially successful players, etc etc – we might more usefully look at spin-out articles, often in the form of lists. Essentially, however, WP should remain as a narrative encyclopedia and far too many of these sections have very few entries or have not been updated. There are even sections entitled "Test match centuries by..." which contain only one century, and that's just silly. I'd also plead for some restraint on colour schemes: South Nashua is right that these things, if they exist, should be a "secondary focus", and screaming fluorescent colours do nobody's eyeballs any favours. Johnlp (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Building on what I said and what John said here, with these "marginal" statistics, such as a player with just one century, placing that statistic in the article's infobox would be more than fine. No need to place it in the article's mainspace unless it's significant. South Nashua (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

So what's the consensus here? I'm not used to how these sorts of things work but nobody has commented here for over a week now and I'm not sure how to proceed with player articles that have the stats in them. TripleRoryFan (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

TripleRoryFan RfCs stay around for 30 days; then they are closed with an outcome which will decide that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Agree with jack. If they are important, they can be mentioned in description of the player's career. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral.I am not against the man of the match and man of the series awards to be posted in each and every cricket biographies as I think according to my point of view those navigation boxes add beauty to the articles as it is our tradition that we have been doing in Cricket related biographies. But on the same time, the man of the match award boxes would cover the 3/4th or 2/3rd of an entire biography meaning that the particular cricketer's achievements in international cricket can be identified through the number of man of the match and many of the series awards earned by that player. There are some articles which have been devoted to the Man of the match awards earned by some of the greatest cricketers in the international cricket separately for example List of ODI awards for Sachin Tendulkar who has earned about 63 Player of the match awards in ODIs, the most by a cricketer in a single format. If the conclusion of this debate is delete so the above article should also be deleted. I at least propose to go with Player of the Series award rather than Player of the Match according to the convenience. Thank you Abishe (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It depends - if there's a table then there needs to be prose to put the table in context. If the contents of the table can be better summarised in the prose then there's no need for the table, but that's not always possible. So, some tables may be appropriate in some cases, although only, I would suggest, with a solid prose introduction of some kind.

If there are going to be tables of stats and awards then I would prefer that they were in an appropriate place in the article. Too often I'm finding sections added to the end of articles, which seems to be leading to too many sections in articles. If there were a statistical summary section that would be more helpful than just a set of different sections thrown on an article.

Interesting to note that today's featured article (Ian Johnson (cricketer)) has a single table and a graph right at the bottom but nothing else in terms of tables of awards, centuries, five wicket hauls and the like. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Even in other foreign language wikis, these Infoboxes are available in Cricket biographies Abishe (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that that's a direct copy (and a v recent one btw) of the English language wikipedia page. Formatting and all. There's one extra source in the En language one - the one that references something in the infobox. It's a direct copy so that's why the tables have been copied across. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This was moved to the archive before it was closed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Listed at RfCs for closure at ANI. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Still at ANI. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Umpiring statistics

In every top umpire's page there is a small statistics box where all the debut and latest matches of the umpire in the three international formats of cricket are mentioned and all the details are also mentioned in prose in their career section. Now Wikipedia policy states that excessive statistics in a biography are unnecessary but limited statistics in tabular form with proper citations are well accepted. So I don't know why my edits in Bongani Jele is constantly being reverted without any proper explanation. Also all other umpires are having that stat box in their pages so why not here? Can someone please explain and take part in this discussion? Cricket246 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Per the per RfC consensus - lists of awards, empty of content or context, are not appropriate for Wikipedia. So they are removed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC also states "Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles" and "...and that where sections for achievements/awards are included, they should be more than just a basic list, being a means to expand and add value to the article" so you cannot remove them. You are not the only authority to decide it is out of context. Let us first reach a consensus and then you can remove it otherwise you can't. Cricket246 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no context for these stats you insist on. There already is a consensus to remove it. Until you can get a consensus to include them, they are removed, per the above. You continue to edit-war about this across dozens of articles too. What the fuck is wrong with you? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The RFC clearly states - Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles – so where is the consensus of already removing them?? Cricket246 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The opening line - "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included." And the closing comment clearly states "numbers or lists of awards, empty of content or context, are not appropriate for Wikipedia, and that where sections for achievements/awards are included, they should be more than just a basic list, being a means to expand and add value to the article." These DO NOT add any value to the article. You would not include a similar table in the body of an article for a player's first/last match, so why would it apply to just the umpire? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, can anyone other than Cricket246 tell me why this section needs to exist? Esp. when there's a prose paragraph DIRECTLY above it? I dare anyone to put that same sort of table onto a current Test cricket captains page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, every international cricketer has a portion allotted in the infobox where his debut Test, ODI and T20I are mentioned and they are the exactly same information offered in the concerned tables for an umpire. For the umpires no such provision for inclusion of debut and latest matches exists in the infobox hence why the long standing convention of these small tables exist. So by every bit of logic tables should stay and if we do away with it then some kind of provision must be made to include these information on debut and latest matches in all 3 formats in the infoboxes of an Umpire's page like in case of players. Cricket246 (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox being the key word. It's not needed in the body of the article. The RfC has been done, and the outcome isn't what you want, so you are crying like a little bitch about it. Have you started your RfC yet? As you continue to edit-war over this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I've already requested for comments here. I don't know any other format so pardon me for that. Also can we create that provision of including the info in the infobox for umpires? Instead of fighting can we find a convenient solution? By the way the RfC has absolutely not reached any consensus of removal so you just can't remove it friend. I already quoted appropriate parts and they are enough to back my points. Cricket246 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't quite understand exactly how it works. By opening a new thread, does not mean you can just go and revert things against the already formed consensus from the RfC. This thread is not a new RfC - you need to follow the process of an RfC! I see you were absent in the original RfC, so you missed a chance to comment then (and it was open for more than 2 months).

It's like hitting your head against a brick wall when talking to this user. I'd appreicate a someone else looking into this before I lose my temper with them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Neither table on the Marais Erasmus page has any context - so both should be removed. Unless someone is going to write something meaningful about the contents of the tables then there is no reason to include either. The first one will get out of date very quickly - they always do when they include last appearance dates when a person is still active. The content can be much better covered in prose. The second one is even worse - there is absolutely no reason to waste the bits involved with putting this in a table. It should very clearly be in prose - these are, presumably, some of the highlights of his umpiring career. The chances are I won't see replies automatically. Pings are appropriate if there is anything significant for me to see. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: Ok no problem, I'm removing both of them as you say. I just thought a bit differently but if majority says it's not needed then so be it. Cricket246 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

2011 English cricket season (and other season articles) at AfD

Please see this discussion. It includes a bundled nomination of twenty or so articles, including the 2017 County Championship, 2015 NatWest t20 Blast, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Closed (speedy) as keep. On another, sadder, note, the background was a long-term member of this project with multiple accounts making the AfD in the first place. I urge anyone to keep an eye out for "new" users starting AfDs, esp. in relation to this project. Hopefully this is the end of this odd behaviour. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Not sure how to describe reading through the various sock-puppet disputes, but it was certainly eye-opening. Spike 'em (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk about going out with a bang. Hack (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just discovered that Richard Daft thinks that I am BlackJack! I encourage anyone to check that I'm not. Spike 'em (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

References to subscription cites in Cricket articles

Arose when I was checking List of cricket grounds in Ireland to verify/check/reuse ground capacity for Malahide cricket ground. Observed a lot of cite links to cricketarchive.com which I marked as subscription. There was also a reference to the that site in external links. I regarded this as WP:REFSPAM reference spamming and have removed it (it may or may not have been originally). I observe this is used on other sites such as List of cricket grounds in Australia and would ask Wikiproject cricket considers this as I do not believe it is wikt:cricket.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark CricketArchive used to be a free source, so most of the external links will be from when it was (so it wasn't spamming a pay site). I'd say it shouldn't be an external link anymore, as it's a paid source now, and so WP:EL says it's shouldn't be added as an external link. If someone wants to retrospectively remove it from all cricket articles, then be my guest. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You'd have a lot of work to do to delete all external links to the site seeing as so many player articles use the template Cricketarchive. TripleRoryFan (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Smacks that bot job should bowl them out ... Wikipedia:Bot requests. I'm not doing going forward with it but its possible it might be considered by the project.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC) ... Actually that template knows about the subscription so should be handling it correctly.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC) If necessary it is simply necessary to modify the template not each article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

From comments above and looking into it probably WP:ELREG is the key content guideline, which I would read as Cricketarchive should not be used as an external link. Having said that the Template:Cricketarchive knows about the subscription and it displays in my view adequately as in for example the current version of Eoin Morgan#External links. The template could also be modified to display nothing instead if required in one fell swoop, which is actually quite good should it be deemed necessary. I would say as a minimum direct external references to Cricketarchive not through the template should ideally be removed or at the very very least modified to Template:Cricketarchive. I'm not sure about new use of Template:Cricketarchive either ... and whether it should be discouraged. In line citations should be modified to use the url-access=subscription parameter to template:Cite as per List of cricket grounds in Ireland.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoah. WP:EL says references to subscription sites should be avoided, not removed. EL goes on to say that references to subscription sites should be inline citations. I very very very much doubt any Cricket Archive links were added as link spam. And I doubt it'll continue as a subscription site, though that remains to be seen. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Dweller is right. The fact that CricketArchive is now behind a paywall does not alter its impartiality or reliability, and many newspapers, for example, are similarly placed. There's a danger that we ask things of online sources that we would never dream of asking of conventional ones: is a book that's obscure, long out-of-print and all but inaccessible to most of us (and then at some cost) essentially better than an online resource? Johnlp (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually the fact it is behind a payroll means it shouldn't be used as an external link, per point 6 of EP:ELNO. Use of paid sources as references is fine though. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:EL says clearly that paid-for sites can be used in citations. Just no bald links. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that the CricketArchive links weren't added as linkspam seeing as the site only recently became subscription-only and the vast majority of them were added beforehand. WP:ELREG says "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article (see § Official links) or the link is part of an inline reference (see Wikipedia:Citing sources)." which means the external links should probably be removed (or perhaps the template should just display nothing so that they can be easily re-added if/when the site stops being subscription-only), but there's no need to remove the citations to it. TripleRoryFan (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

International cricket umpire at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

RM discussion

I just started a requested move discussion to move & repurpose List of cricketers who have taken two five-wicket hauls on Test debut to List of cricketers who have taken ten-wicket hauls on Test debut. Your input would be appreciated here. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

FLRC notification

I have nominated List of Delhi Daredevils cricketers 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Score format at 2017–18 Trans-Tasman Tri-Series

The format of the scores for the matches in the 2017–18 Trans-Tasman Tri-Series are being done in the Australian format 1/100 rather than the rest of the world format of 100/1. But, this tournament is being held in both Australia & New Zealand, and New Zealand use the 100/1 format. We discussed this issue previously for the 2015 Cricket World Cup Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup/Archive 1#Wickets before runs, where it was decided we should use the 100/1 format. But when I changed the format, it's now been reverted. In my opinion, the 100/1 format should be used, as that's the commonly most used format, and it's only Australia who don't use it- and this tournament is not being held wholly in Australia. Can we also amend the score format section at WP:CRIC to highlight this scenario- current wording of "adopt the consensus style of writing in the host country of the match: i.e., 1/141 (shorthand) or one for 141 (longhand) re matches in Australia; and 141/1 or 141 for one re matches in most other countries" makes no sense as half the matches would be in one format and half in the other. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The majority of matches—by a ratio of 4 to 3 including the final—are in New Zealand. Therefore the New Zealand scoring format should be used. By the same token, the article should be written using New Zealand English not British English, however slight the difference may be. The tournament is not in Britain. -- Ham105 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering about this scenario during the first few matchs and didn't know if there was a precedent or not. Seems to make sense to have the 100/1 format, based on the above. I've updated the article accordingly. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The 2015 Cricket World Cup had more of its matches hosted in Australia. That should mean the 1/100 format used in that case, and the other local conventions – Australian English used. -- Ham105 (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think in situations where the tournament is truly international (i.e. the World Cup, which although it is played in a single country or sometimes two/three), we should use the international score format. The ICC typically only uses the [runs]/[wickets] format, so we should use that for World Cups, Champions Trophies and any series other than bilateral ones played in Australia. – Pee Jay 16:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Aus hosted entire three or 4 way ODI tournaments until 3 years ago, which should also make use of their scoring system. Spike 'em (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not our fault the rest of the world is wrong. The-Pope (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Srewth! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I send invitations to new members for your project?

Hi, I have been working on recommending new members for your project for a while, and have sent some lists to Störm who helped invite those recommended editors. I wonder if you mind me sending invitations directly to save time and efforts of yours? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I haven’t heard anything back from any member in the project yet. But based on the feedback from other projects, it seems to be a welcomed idea. If I don’t hear any objection, I’d help send a small number of invitations to selective editors with care. Bobo.03 (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Tests

Hey guys, currently the infobox is very incorrect on some associate teams show that their first international match is listed under "Tests", which clearly isn't true. Take PNG for example. Under the category of "Tests", they've been listed as having played Australia in the 1970's, which certainly was a game of First Class of List A status at best. - J man708 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Problem should be fixed. Certainly not first class or list A; according to our infobox, first list A/first class etc for PNG was in 2005, probably was a friendly kind of thing. Did the same fix for women's team too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers boss! - J man708 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

List of South Australian representative cricketers

If anybody has any opinions on this I'd like input on whether or not to split the List of South Australian representative cricketers article into three based on format as has already been done for List of Western Australia cricketers. I started a discussion on the talk page and would like input from other editors. TripleRoryFan (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

See the talk page discussion for my view. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Twenty20 cricket records

I'd tend to think List of Twenty20 cricket records is a candidate for deletion? Based on it being almost impossible to keep reliably up to date and the whole NOTSTATS thing. Is that a reasonable suggestion? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it to me. The only thing that gives me pause is the fact that the similarly-purposed article List of Test cricket records is a featured list, showing that these lists can be good on Wikipedia. Obviously it's different because Test cricket is a higher level of cricket. I don't think there's any harm in taking it to AfD to see what people think even if it's not deleted. TripleRoryFan (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems no more easy / difficult to maintain that List of first-class cricket records or List of List A cricket records and is equally as valid as either. If you don't like stats lists, then nominate them all. Spike 'em (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

First-class I can see a point for - as much as anything, the records are unlikely to change very often because of the amount of first-class cricket played these days. There is also some context to the list and some with the individual categories, although I dislike the gratuitous nature of parts of the list and there is clearly some POV and need for some editing in it. The LA one has no context at all really. The international ones - Test certainly - probably have a place, but I'm not a fan of lists of stats in general as they so often end up bloated and massively out of date. The nature of T20 cricket more so. I can't decide if it's worth the hassle of deleting it though - someone will only come along and re-create it.

To add: I've now made some specific suggestions are the T20 article to cut down the amount of tables in the article so that there's a hop it might stay up to date. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of 'cutting down the amount of tables in the article'. Störm (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move at Man of the match

Hi. There is a move request at Talk:Man of the match#Requested move 5 March 2018 that might be of interest to this project. AIRcorn (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

South African cricket team page moves

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

RM notification

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Man of the match#Requested move 5 March 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 09:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Doubt on ESPNcricinfo

Hi to all. We all know ESPNcricinfo is an important site to provide sources and citations in various cricket related pages. Now there is a small disagreement on how to write it - ESPNcricinfo or ESPN Cricinfo? The name of the brand is ESPNcricinfo as per all information in the internet and also as per the confirmation I had from them. So which format should we be sticking to while providing it as a reference in various pages? Surely we need to be going with the way the brand names itself? Cricket246 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I always write it as ESPNcricinfo. – Pee Jay 15:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Even I do the same and most importantly the company names itself like that... You can see how one user keeps editing my edits to his own version "ESPN Cricinfo" in these pages : Joel Wilson (umpire), Simon Fry, Michael Gough (cricketer), Gregory Brathwaite, Langton Rusere and others. What should be done? Cricket246 (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you informed that user of this discussion? – Pee Jay 16:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No. Actually we aren't on great talking terms to be absolutely honest and if I post on his talk page he plain deletes it straightaway so I am not able to inform it any way. Cricket246 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I would still post on their talk page so you can at least say you tried. If they delete it, that's up to them, but it puts you on the moral high ground. – Pee Jay 12:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll surely do so from the next time round... This time Spike has already informed the concerned user... From next time I'll always inform the concerned users about any discussions initiated. Cricket246 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I also use ESPNcricinfo and I'm sure Lugnuts will read this at some point (and probably has already). Don't be shy in mentioning him, in any discussion about another user it is proper form to inform them (whether they choose to take part is then up to them). If you do seek to come to a consensus that the other person will accept, then it has far more legitimacy if they take part in the process. Spike 'em (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And to the actual discussion: the relevant page is ESPNcricinfo, so either that is what consensus thinks the site is called or a page move is needed.Spike 'em (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've left him a note on his talk page. As to a soultion, if you want to continue making changes, then do so and put something like "name to match article title and [[WT:WikiProject Cricket#Doubt on ESPNcricinfo|discussion]] at WP:CRIC" in the edit summary. You have attempted to discuss and form a consensus. Spike 'em (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Spike for all the suggestions. I'll act accordingly from now on. Cricket246 (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to simply use CricInfo, essentially to avoid the use of the brandname just in case it gets sold to someone else at some point in the future - which would then involve a heck of a lot of edits being made. CricInfo is reliable and makes clear where the information is coming from and avoids using a potentially short lived brand name - which is a maxim I tend to try to stick to where possible anyway.

If I were referring to the site itself, however, I might use the brand name in place when the comments were made, for example. The template for external links uses ESPNcricinfo - which is the current name. If there were any doubt and you really, really wanted to include the brand name then that form should be used. Note that the template could be altered in one place if there were a renaming of the site. References couldn't. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Currently ESPNcricinfo is used everywhere. Cricket246 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Currently, perhaps (and is it by the way?). That's not my point. I"m trying to make any future change easier to deal with. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that a couple of old browser bookmarks (on my phone / PC) have "ESPN Cricinfo" in the (auto-generated) title, but all new ones have "ESPNcricinfo", so at some point they have changed the branding themselves. The main article here has been ESPNcricinfo since 2010, but the page move is based on the site's internal branding rather than any evidence on change of use in WP:RS that would satisfy WP:UCRN. If people think this is wrong then a page move discussion is needed. Spike 'em (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Umpire statistics

Hi to all. Till the last month we used to have a small statistics table for all international umpires stating their debuts and latest matches but that has now been removed. Now like the international players, also for the international umpires their debut and latest hold a lot of significance games. So I had a suggestion that can we somehow get the information included in the infobox like the players as it is really significant piece of information. Now a person looking at the biography might get a good overall idea about the official's career seeing those snippets of stats so probably we can think about mentioning it in the infobox?

The earlier table looked like this which has now been done away with :

	First	Latest	Total
Tests	Bangladesh v India at Chittagong, January 2010	New Zealand v England at Christchurch, March 2018	49
ODIs	Kenya v Canada at Nairobi (Gym), October 2007	India v Australia at Nagpur, October 2017	74
T20Is	South Africa v Australia at Johannesburg, February 2006	India v Australia at Mohali, March 2016	26

Would be great to know everyone's opinion on the suggestion mentioned above? Cricket246 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this idea. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of content already present in the article, not simply a place to put minor details that probably do deserve to be in the article but that we can't be bothered to write full sentences about in the article prose. If an umpire's international debut is that important, write about it in their article, provided you can source it. If you can't source sufficient content for the article, it's possible that – regardless of what this WikiProject's specific notability criteria say – the subject probably isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. – Pee Jay 18:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the prose in one line along with a proper source in most matches... Even if not in the infobox, why can't we have a table like the one attached above? Those tables had been there almost forever in Wikipedia till a month ago when they were removed. Since the Wiki policy allows limited stats in tabular form along with prose then why weren't there tables allowed? Even proper source were attached along with the table. I just thought if someone doesn't read the prose in great detail, but having a look at the table one get idea about 90% of the overall career of an umpire and how he started and ended international career. That's why I initiated this discussion. Cricket246 (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see the need. The table doesn't tell you anything more than the prose in that case. Sure, the table gives you the info at a glance, but what's the point in presenting the same data twice in two different formats? – Pee Jay 20:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Earlier it wasn't in prose form and these tables were there. The gentleman who removed these tables from about 15 pages, apparently didn't bother to write that information as prose and hence the information is missing from all those umpires' pages... So what should be done for those umpires for whom the information is missing?? Cricket246 (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Also in case of football, for the referees we always wrote all important games in prose and then mention the most notable games separately in table form plus there's a table for the finals officiated. At least can we have one such table of the finals officiated by an umpire? Surely that is really minimum stats and Wikipedia policy allows small amount of properly sourced statistics. Having a small table for finals officiated wouldn't be bad as it's really notable in an umpire's career. Cricket246 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

These tables are not needed at all. The previous consensus complies with WP:NOTSTATS, hence why they were correctly removed. Maybe Cricket246 could try and write some prose instead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The entire prose in Marais Erasmus is expanded by me. I'll do it only in those pages that I would wish. Thank you. Cricket246 (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

WP does not work like that. See WP:OWN. The consensus arrived at here was that this kind of table was not wanted. You can ask that this decision is revisited, but you should not be taking unilateral action on "your" articles. Johnlp (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the original question wasn't whether to bring back the tables, it was whether or not to put the information into the infobox. TripleRoryFan (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi John. I think you missed the point here totally. Those tables weren't my work as those were there from about 5 years before I joined. Secondly I never suggested to bring back the tables as TripleRoryFan suggests rightly and I was merely exploring the idea of putting the information in the infoboxes like for players. I am never claiming any ownership of anything in Wikipedia. You totally misunderstood it all. Cricket246 (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

As I've said before, I feel that any "latest" or "last" match statistics should be avoided until that person is pretty certainly retired from that form of the sport. They get very out of date very quickly on almost every article - even if the other stats are updated. I could live with a span of *seasons* (note: not years; 2011-2013 is how many seasons exactly?) in the infobox, but I wouldn't bother with any individual match dates. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion was actually on the ground that all players' infoboxes have that information. Cricket246 (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of Marais Erasmus, looks like Cricket246 is using an IP address as a WP:SOCK to game the system with edits like this (mobile edit, exclusivly on umpire stats, same thing here). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Start the blame game. That's good. I'm in no way responsible for any edits after the consensus was arrived. When a consensus was reached I respect that and accordingly but since I had a suggestion I brought it up for discussions. I don't know who made those edits but it is not me for sure. You should back your claims with more solid proofs before directly blaming someone. Thank you. Cricket246 (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

100% they are your edits. The edit pattern, the niche subjects, the timing, etc, all point to you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I had a look at Erasmus, the infobox looks about right to me (number of Internationals with a date range). I can see that there is an argument over 1st / last international games as happens for players, but it may be better to ditch that for players as – for many – the infobox is far longer than the rest of the article. Spike 'em (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point Spike... Like the umpires, the stats for players are also easily available in Cricinfo so we can do away with that... Moreover it's a good point made that the information of the first and latest matches is not updated for ages at times!! Cricket246 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please consider this suggestion mentioned by me earlier for once? : "Also in case of football, for the referees we always wrote all important games in prose and then mention the most notable games separately in table form plus there's a table for the finals officiated. At least can we have one such table of the major international finals officiated by an umpire? Surely that is really minimum stats and Wikipedia policy allows small amount of properly sourced statistics. Having a small table for finals officiated wouldn't be bad as it's really notable in an umpire's career. Please give this idea a thought for once everyone. Cricket246 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Why have a table, when it can be handled in prose? You wouldn't have a table for players who've appeared/won a "major final". I see you've moved to football too to add your obsession with tables, stats and no context. I guess it's that project's headache too! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to bother about everything, do you? That project has provisions of doing that hence it's being done. What's your problem? You're no owner of Wikipedia! Cricket246 (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Kits in infobox

Split from Tests discussion directly above
There are also no instructions about how to change the labels for kits at the bottom of the infobox. For example, apparently Essex County Cricket Club have Test and ODI uniforms. Hack (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately the kits are really not awfully helpful anyway. It's impossible to add appropriate details when a kit if anything other than a basic colour scheme and the idea of needing to show a set of whites for a first-class kit is laughable. If it could be made one-day and T20 and have the possibility to show more complex kits - Guyana anyone? - then there might be some potential. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Cap design would be more relevant. Hack (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

There was already a h_title parameter which was used for all 3 kits, I've added a_title and t_title for the 2nd and 3rd kits and changed labels on Essex page. ~~I need to make a further change to use h_title in place of the other 2 kit titles if only that is populated, to preserve previous behaviour.~~ If you want anything more than plain colours, you need to download a copy of the empty kit template and customise it yourself. I've done similar for football kits and in particular England cricket team (the ODI and T20I were done by me). Spike 'em (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

In fact, before I added to Essex, there were no active usage of the h_title parameter (and only 1 where there is an blank instance) so I won't bother with mimicking previous behaviour Spike 'em (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking for sources

As always, sources are hard to find for obvious things. What I am looking for are reliable sources (newspapers, official sources) for the notation of results. For the result of a whole game, law 16 in the LoC is given, but for the notation of results of single innings (run-wickets (overs)) and the Australian way of doing it the other way round I am not able to find anything. Anyone an idea where to look?--Maphry (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. At WP:CRIC#STYLE, under the sub-heading of "Scoring" gives more details of how we format scorecards on WP. Basically, if the series/season takes place wholly within Australia, we use the 9/350 (50 overs) format, for all other articles, the non-Australian way, IE 350/9 (50 overs). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we have any sources for that though? It is obviously traditional that scores are written [wickets]/[runs] in Australia, but do we have a third-party source that acknowledges this fact or the reason why it's done that way? – Pee Jay 19:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection of hearing something on the radio at some point over the last few months - I think a conversation between Dagnall and possibly Jim Maxwell during a commentary stint. But that's far too vague to cite of course. There might just be something discussed in a Stumped podcast perhaps? If anyone wants to trawl back through them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Supposedly, Ned Gregory was responsible for this when he built a scoreboard at the Sydney Cricket Ground that used the wickets/runs format.[2] Hack (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately this is the answer of a reader and not part of the newspaper itself. Have tried to find this statement verified by a reliable source elsewhere (it comes up in many quora and other question sites), but it seems that journalists were up to now not willing to write about it.--Maphry (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this image helps ? Taken in 1901, it was reproduced in 1923. It shows the Gregory scoreboard in wickets/runs format: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/223449770

RossRSmith (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Andy Ganteaume

Andy Ganteaume, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Nick Knight page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed team name changes

Hi, I guess I should place notice of this proposal here. Thanks. Protea caffra (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Linking of country name in infobox

Hi to all. In cricket player and officials' infoboxes where he mention their birthplace traditionally we always link the country name once but recently it has been removed citing WP:OVERLINK. Now my query is the policy clearly says that it's a grey area and wherever needed country names may be linked. So at least once in the infobox a country name can be linked. Suppose I'm looking at Joe Root's page, I may be interested to find out more about England. So linking England in the infobox obviously isn't a violation of the policy. What's the view of others on this? Cricket246 (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I've already explained this on the user's talkpage, but they're giving off the impression of WP:IDHT. There's no real reason to link to England, Australia, South Africa, etc, as WP:OVERLINK details. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the explanation isn't clear to me I make this query to all users. What's the problem with that? Cricket246 (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

There are a set of words, phrases etc... that we can commonly assume that most readers will already understand without requiring a link. Names of almost all countries - as well as larger cities such as London - are one. Smaller cities (say, Leicester) are reasonable to link as are less commonly known about countries - certainly places such as Suriname or Djibouti. The grey area between those is harder to deal with of course and the context of the article has to be taken into account.

Given that nationality is almost always mentioned in the lead paragraph of the article as well, I actually question whether it's necessary to include the country of birth in the infobox at all. If, for example, someone was born in London, Cape Town, Mumbai, Melbourne etc... and the lead specifically says that they are English (etc...) then I don't see that there's a need to include that information in the infobox as well. Of course, where someone is born in another country then that becomes more important.

I'd also argue that if someone is born in, say, Western Australia then there's a case for not including Australia as well in the infobox - where else would Western Australia be? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we devise some common ground on this to maintain an uniformity over all pages? Would be great if all users can discuss and decide on 1 format that we should be implementing!! Cricket246 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK is the common ground. You simply do not get it. I understand that you're bitter now that your umpire flag tables have gone, so you're becoming disruptive and not getting the message. Walk away and stop being a WP:DICK. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm bringing up a point for discussion and you have a problem with that... You can't communicate without being personal or offensive... WP:OVERLINK says it's a grey area and there is no hard and fast rule that no country name can't be linked and I don't think you're the sole authority to define that grey area, are you?? Get over it buddy, you don't own Wikipedia that what you say is by default final... No need to be personal in every comment Cricket246 (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Whilst we're at it can we cut down on all the similar links in the stats / achievement tables (though I'm sure some would rather just ditch the tables) Spike 'em (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No consistent treatment of articles... Some pages are still having heaps of overlinked tables even after RfP consensus... Trying our level best to bring that uniformity all across Cricket246 (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a manual of style for biographies that contains some useful pointers. Any article about a person falls under that. Beyond that you're unlikely to find any real consensus on cricketers. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Then technically both linking and not linking are acceptable... So what should we essentially do and how do define and decide on the grey area?? Cricket246 (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No, OVERLINK comes in. You're unlikely to find very much of a manual of style for cricket articles which specifies things like standard subheadings etc... That's all. An individual project MOS shouldn't say anything that could conflict with BIO and OVERLINK anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes....." – Lots of grey area and no common ground to reach a consensus... There are very reasonable arguments for both sides of the spectrum Cricket246 (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Who on earth would be interested in going to Joe Root's article to click a link for England? What benefit does that have? None. Again, you pick and chose what you want to read with no rationale behind your edits. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if one person is interested you can't rule it out... Linking a country name once in the infobox is perfectly acceptable as far as the policy goes... That's it... We have decide to not link it but then nothing in the policy says to do so and hence no hiding behind the policy Cricket246 (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK is clear on this and it's part of the MOS. The burden is with you to get this changed. Good luck! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get anything changed, I'm only having a discussion to clarify the wordings of the policy... By the way the policy is pretty clear too – "These are two sides of a spectrum with a grey area between them, which varies by context"... So the way you reverted the changes without any prior discussion probably wasn't the right thing to do... That's all!! Cricket246 (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know which side of the spectrum is black and which is white, but India and England are both at the very well-known end. The MOS startes that links are not to be used to create emphasis, which I think is the main reason it seems to be done.Spike 'em (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)s

You don't link commonly known words - and that generally includes most countries. Papua New Guinea, maybe. Possibly Nepal - but at that point I'm at a grey area already. Certainly I can't imagine linking England etc... Too many links makes an article unreadable - for really good technical reasons. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly this... Now how do we decide which country to link and which one not to in case of the Umpires?? So we don't link England and Australia but link South Africa or New Zealand?? How do we achieve the consistency overall? That's my question basically... When I come across a linked country name what should I be doing - keep it or remove it?? Cricket246 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

They all seem like well known countries to me. I'd get rid of any country links that are not to not well known countries or there they are vital to the context of the article. To interpret this, I'd have link to the county from the national team article but not from the players / officials. Spike 'em (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You're drawing the line way too high with South Africa and New Zealand. They are clear cases of not linking to me - really, really obviously clear cases. It's not even close. As I've suggested above, somewhere like Suriname or possibly (**possibly**) Nepal might be something I'd consider linking, depending on the context of the article. For someone like Geraint Jones I think it's reasonable to consider linking his country of birth perhaps - but I'm not sure if I'd link it in the inbox or not. It depends - I think I'd probably leave it as it is in this case. If it's Aus, NZ, India, Afghanistan etc... I'll certainly remove the link. If it's something like British India then I'll probably leave it - the historical element of that is probably worth the link. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

For now, then I'm not linking any country name in the infobox... In case of most international players and umpires who are notable the country name is fairly common so it's logical to remove the linking for the sake of consistency!! Cricket246 (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hasan Ali page move

Please add your comment for the page move request. Störm (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

English Competition Names

I happened to notice today that the t20 Blast has been renamed from the Natwest t20 Blast to the Vitality t20 Blast. Previously the same competition has been known as the Friends Life t20 and the Twenty20 Cup. The latter two pages have their own page, whilst the Natwest blast page now redirects to the Vitality one. We have a similar issue with a number of the other English one-day competitions ending up redirecting to later versions. In contrast the County Championship omits any sponsor names in any of its titles. None of the other major t20 competitions seem to use the sponsor's name in the article title - e.g. BBL, IPL, PSL etc...

Given that the format has essentially been identical for all versions of the competition, that sponsors come and go and that the general position with things such as stadium names is to avoid using sponsors, would it make more sense to have one page which doesn't use the sponsors name at all for the t20 Blast? Would it be better to simply redirect all the various English t20 cup competitions to the same page whilst we're at it? And what would be the best name for the page?

If we were do prefer that option, what would be the best option for the other one-day competitions? The B&H and Gillette are tricky as they were known by those names for such a long time. I'm interested in opinions on this as it does seem rather a mess at times. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm usually more of a regular at WP:FOOTY and we come across this all the time over there. The solution is usually to totally ignore sponsored names, unless there is no unsponsored name to revert to, and treat all incarnations of the same competition as one subject with one article. What we should do with the T20 Blast is tough to call, but I'd say perhaps that's what we should call the article – T20 Blast. – Pee Jay 12:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of the way football deals with things, which I think has the potential to be our guide here. @Dweller: might be able to offer advice from that pov as well. T20 Blast or T20 Cup? Or Twenty20 Cup? Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

T20 cup is too vague; there's also National_Twenty20_Cup Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, good spot. My preference is probably for Twenty20 Cup as the Blast part of the name was only introduced recently, but I can see how Blast is more distinct (until they change it to something else that is...) Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate more opinions: Twenty20 Cup or T20 Blast as the article title? Then I'll start a merge proposal. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed by which it is, so long as the one not chosen redirects to the preferred name. JH (talk page) 16:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Given Twenty20 Cup was the original(unsponsored)name, I'd go with that. Spike 'em (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Formal merge proposed at Talk:Twenty20 Cup. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

There seem to be no objections to merging. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

So, T20 merge done. I think I've picked up all the loose ends, but the article needs more sources and the like and I'm bound to have missed something.

Now, the List A competitions are still problematic. We currently have:

Friends Provident Trophy - this covers the Gillette Cup (63-80), NatWest Trophy (81-2000), Cheltenham and Gloucester Trophy (01-06) and FP Trophy (07-09)
Royal London One-Day Cup - which is included in the template box for the FP Trophy etc... but which contains details about the John Player League/Sunday League (68-83 + 92), Refuge Assurance League (87-91) and Refuge Assurance Cup (88-91), AXA League (93-98), CGU League (99), Norwich Union League (2000-02), National League (03), toteSport league (04-05), NatWest Pro40 (06-09), Clydesdale Bank 40 (10-12), Yorkshire Bank 40 (13) and Royal London One Day Cup (14-present)

ECB 40 (2010-14) - which seems to be the Clydesdale Bank and Yorkshire Bank 40 tournaments which are included in the Royal London page
Pro 40 which includes all the Royal London One-Day Cup leagues from the JP League to the NatWest Pro 40 in 2009

Benson & Hedges Cup - 1972-2002

The B&H is the only one that makes sense to me - as much as I have issues with the use of the sponsor's name, it's the only one that existed under just one name. The Pro40 ECB 40, Sunday League, Royal London One-Day Cup mess is particularly messed up and I'm not sure what the best solution is? The fact that the Sunday League redirects to the Royal London and that the Royal London is included in the Gillette Cup template box suggests that something's not quite right.

I think part of a solution might be to create a Sunday League (cricket) article and deal with all the JP League stuff in that. I'm not sure what year to take it up to - possibly 05? Perhaps then keep one of the Pro 40 or ECB 40 articles - these seem the same competition but I'm really not sure if they're the same as the Sunday League or not.

Do we then call the FP Tropy etc... article the One-Day Cup? And stick the Royal London stuff in with that? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think about proposing splitting the Royal London off from the Sunday Leagues at least. I think a Pro 40 league would make sense perhaps - that seems different to the Sunday League. B&H stays and then I think a One-day cup article for the Gillette through to the Royal London - moving the article from the FP Trophy one? Any thoughts? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The latest edition of The Cricketer April 2018, p.40) has a handy table which uses:

Gillette cup and successors
John Player League/Pro40
Benson & Hedges Cup

as its column headings to summarise performance. I think that's probably the division we go for. One-Day Cup or One Day Cup or One-Day Cup (cricket) as an article title? Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Australian captaincy situation

I've seen lots of articles edited to remove Steve Smith and David Warner as captain / vice-captain of the Aus national team. All I've seen confirmed is that they were stood down from those positions for the last day of the Test that has just finished and that Smith has been suspended for 1 match. To my mind, Smith is still the permanent captain until Cricket Australia say otherwise and anything else is WP:CRYSTAL. Tim Paine has so far stood-in as captain for part of 1 game, and should not be listed as the permanent captain until he is announced as such. Any other instance of a captain missing a game or 2 due to suspension / injury does not cause an overhaul of related articles. Anyone have any thoughts (about the articles, not the fact that they may have made some poor decisions)? Spike 'em (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. JH (talk page) 21:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

And just to add a bit of WP:V, the ICC press release about Smith's suspension, refers to him as "Australia captain Steve Smith" Spike 'em (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Also from the ICC, this article which has the ambigious wording of "Cricket Australia (CA) reacted quickly to the ball-tampering incident at the ongoing Cape Town Test between South Africa and Australia, confirming that Steve Smith and David Warner will stand down as captain and vice-captain of the team with immediate effect". Now if that means for just the third Test, or they're no longer capt/VC, is a matter of semantics. I guess the official word would come from CA ahead of the fourth Test. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: - incase you've not seen this yet. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw similar, but was on my way home. A linked article from there states "Smith has also been stripped of the captaincy for at least the final Test in South Africa, with Tim Paine endorsed by the board as his successor and Australia's 46th Test captain after he acted in the role on day four in Cape Town." so it is not completely clear that that this is a permanent change, but given the gravity of the situation it probably is. It says further "significant" sanctions will be announced in next 24 hours which may make things slightly clearer. If anyone wants to change captaincy, I'm not going to revert either way! Spike 'em (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the reported 1-year bans well and truly removes them from captaincy! Spike 'em (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Lots of developing news regarding this issue after 27 March, 2018 with David Warner losing his contract with LG Electronics and also stepped down from captaining the Sunrisers Hyderabad side in the 2018 IPL. I have updated the templates as Tim Paine appointed as the new interim Test captain of Australia as the trio of cricketers have been currently suspended from international matches according to the sources. Abishe (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone going to complain about splitting this into a separate article, there are at least 7 articles covering it and I think it would be best to merge into one place and only have brief details on the individual pages. There is lots of copying and pasting of info going on with little effort from some editors to make relevant to the individual articles. So far I've seen:

Spike 'em (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

With the year-long bans and repercussions beyond the scope of any one of these articles, you may be right. It seems appropriate to have a brief summary of the outcomes relevant specifically to the respective topic in each of these articles, with a hatnote to the main article. An alternative is to keep the main coverage at Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2017–18#Ball tampering as the incident occurred during the Australian South Africa tour, and all the outcomes originate from that incident. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Clearly the presently unfolding scandal is the most egregious cricket-ball-tampering affair of all time, warranting a separate article similar to this one. That's now been commenced with the article 2018 Australian ball-tampering scandal, which will need a great deal more work. Bjenks (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Australia national cricket team still shows Smith as Captain. I'd change it, but is it clear that Paine is now the captain of the ODI and T20 sides? If not, then should Template:Current national cricket captains also be updated to make clear what captaincy role Paine has? EdChem (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Added: Paine wasn't even in the T2o squad that Warner captained in NZ in February, so it is hard to believe he's now the captain for T20 matches. Maybe the current captains template should show Paine as test captain and ODI and T20 as vacant or unknown? EdChem (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Quite possible, or even likely, it's Finch or somebody else as captain; so unknown or just not putting it seems best Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sightscreen or Sight screen?

We have an article on Sight screen and sightscreen redirects to the list of cricket terms. Collins dictionary defines sightscreen, Oxford sight screen. Both seem to be in common usage. I tend to thin sight screen is easier simply because we already have that article (and autocorrect splits sightscreen consistently as well!), but sightscreen has way more articles linking to it. Any thoughts? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

My memory may be at fault, but when I've seen the term in print I think it's almost always been one word. But I don't think it's important enough to worry about too much. JH (talk page) 09:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it's not important. I just don't want to annoy anyone by redirecting things. Anyone know what it's called in Australia/New Zealand? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is an ad for such equipment in Australia - https://www.networldsports.com.au/cricket.html. Two words it is. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

International tour articles

I hate to raise an old issue, but did we ever come to a resolution about what order to put the sections in when it comes to international tour articles? Personally, I think that tour matches should always come at the very end, after all of the full international matches (i.e. Tests, ODIs and T20Is) due to their lower status. See English cricket team in New Zealand in 2017–18, for example; I understand that the "tour matches" were played in between the ODI series and the Test series, but it just looks out of place to have them right in the middle. I agree with putting the ODIs first as they were played first, but to put the Tests after the tour matches seems monumentally weird to me. – Pee Jay 15:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think the tour articles should always go in chronological order so that the tour matches have context. I think by putting them at the end it could have the effect of some people assuming they were played afterwards when tour matches are usually played before the series as warm-ups. They're almost akin to pre-season matches in that sense, which other sports will always put before the regular season. TripleRoryFan (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

As a fan of old cricket books covering many tours in the past, I can say the convention has always been to list matches in chronological order. Of course, a lot of these books covered tours that didn't include these new-fangled short matches of a day or or less, but the principle still remains. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

For modern tours a strictly chronological way of working may make sense as there tend to be relatively few non-international matches. The New Zealand example is fine - it's easy to use and follow. It's not that long ago, however, when some tours were much longer and included many more matches, often between international games. For example, the Australian cricket team in England in 1975 played 15 matches, all of them first-class. There were, for example, four matches against county sides between the first and second tests, two between the 2nd and 3rd and one between the 3rd and 4th.

Although I can live totally with having this dealt with chronologically, it's worth considering whether it's going to confuse readers if we do that or whether it's better to deal with things completely chronologically or do what Australian cricket team in England and Ireland in 2001 does and split them. In that case the international matches - the most important - are dealt with after every warm up match, which seems to be more bizarre actually.

Currently, of course, most historical tour articles skip anything that's not an international. There's also the slight issue of old "England" tours and matches played under the name MCC, although that can be dealt with obviously. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer chronological order, but preferably with some way of making the international matches stand out so that they are easy to skip to should the reader desire to. JH (talk page) 09:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

How about collapsing non-international matches in any list? I know not everyone likes collapsing, but it's a legitimate way of doing things and, given that the main focus should probably be the international matches, provides a possible solution. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No, we can't do that. MOS:COLLAPSE says we shouldn't hide article content in a collapsible box if it's not possible to read it anywhere else due to accessibility issues for people with screen readers etc. – Pee Jay 10:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, we can in some circumstances. If there were text written about matches, for example (or indeed, a summer of the tour) then collapsing matches is entirely appropriate. Given that collapsible templates also leave the key information visible (i.e. the result and the match) rather than simply collapsing an entire section then there's a perfectly reasonable argument for doing so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you've read many cricket tour articles recently, but I haven't seen anyone bothering to write any prose about matches for absolute years! – Pee Jay 11:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Tell me about it Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall that there was an outcome, but chronological order would make sense for the reader (esp. someone not familar with cricket). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Chronological order for full international matches, sure, but surely any confusion is overcome by the fact that the date of each match is written in the summary template? After all, we already ignore chronological order when we split out the mid-series tour matches into a separate section. I'm just operating on the assumption that most people will care about the full internationals more than they care about the tour matches, and thus the tour matches should go at the bottom. – Pee Jay 10:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

To add: Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is a good article. It has the Test matches before Other matches. It is, of course, very much the exception in that it barely has any statistical information tabulated in it. I don't know if there are any other tour articles with such status? Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

According to this list, there are four "good" tour articles. Protea caffra (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And the only multi-format one that also includes tour matches on that list is English cricket team in Bangladesh in 2009–10, which puts the tour matches at the end of the article, after the Test and ODI matches, which is where I say they belong. – Pee Jay 17:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The 1884 one sort of does the same thing with an "other matches" summary after the Test series. Protea caffra (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: I'm not saying that just because the article is considered a Good Article we should necessarily follow its structure, but it is evidence that articles that follow that format can be considered GAs. – Pee Jay 17:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Steve Smith stats

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I've posted similar at the Steve Smith talk, but what exactly is the consensus here? The RfC said there was no consensus to remove lists from existing articles, but at least 2 editors (unless it is same person not logging on) are going through many articles saying that they are following consensus. There are lists of centuries split off from player articles, but one editor has said that this should only happen once a player has reached 25 tons. I would say that his implies that before this level that the centuries stay on the individual player, and if not we ditch all the "List of"s Spike 'em (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As posted to the same discussion: I read the gist of the closure summary as "if there is context, they're OK, but if there isn't they're not". Tables as such are reasonable to have in article, but only if there is some kind of context to support their inclusion - i.e. some prose to summarise them or provide context to them. If tables have context then, in most cases, I'm perfectly happy with them.

Clearly there are examples of cricket articles where tables are placed within context and where they are helpful. The RfC close, I think, was referencing that, rather than open the way to the removal of every table even when they do have context and add value to the article.

The "problem" is the mass addition of tabulated material to hundreds of articles without any prose whatsoever to support it - and, in most cases, leading to the use of far too many sections within articles. The 25+ centuries (which seems to have become established for some reason) articles are list articles rather than "main" articles - which have a different set of rules and where tables and stats are much more acceptable. I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

How much context is needed? Were I to add a table with career averages across all 6 forms of the game (which I feel is a valid thing to add) would it be sufficient to add a boilerplate line like "These are Player X's career averages." or would you expect a more individualised introduction? I feel that we should create a standardised layout with examples of stats to include (as an example the Football player template has a Career Statistics section which does not have any other context) and then we can make it far clearer what should and shouldn't be included. Spike 'em (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I tend to think that it depends upon what statistics are included. If, for example, it's a box like we have on Daniel Bell-Drummond then that might be OK, although I'd prefer to have something a little more specific written - such as the sort of thing we have at Jos Buttler (I keep meaning to get around to writing some context for the DBD article...). Those are simple statistical summaries however, rather than the often long and quite complex tables we end up with on articles such as Michael Atherton or Colin Cowdrey.

For an article such as Jeff Crowe where we have 3 separate tables with 3 separate sub-headings I'm not sure that the basic idea above will really work - those seem to me to be examples of gratuitous tables thrown on to an article without any real context at all. They would seem to need more than the basics perhaps:

Crowe made three Test centuries in his career. The first, a score of 128, was made... (details and refs) ... The last was made... His highest... etc...

At that point I'm fairly sure that we either don't need the table (in the case of 3 centuries, I'm really not sure we do) or we can collapse it. For a player with more centuries then I can see how the table may still be useful, although there may be argument that a longish table might be better collapsed with a summary - the summary serving to deal with any collapse issues.

I am, of course, a big fan of the style guides at the football project. They don't always apply brilliantly, but they're not a bad starting point and I've suggested developing appropriate guides before. The career summary table there is perfectly reasonable - and exactly the sort of thing I tend to leave in articles. It's when we get the multiple tables we find at articles like Harbhajan Singh (often with crappy use of colour) that I start to think we need to consider what level of statistical detail is required.

As a related point, the sorts of tables on Sachin Tendulkar are probably fairly reasonable, although the lack of context on that article really worries me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I vote for removal of any statistics that lack context or are Wikipedia:Too much detail (qv). The infoboxes are good, useful aids to the reader. So are tables like championship placings or squad summaries. Those are in context almost by default. But, I removed tables from Virat Kohli that sized to 50kb. There was no context to them and no use at all to anyone trying to read the article. Probably put there by someone who idolizes Kohli. Thanks. Protea caffra (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Kagiso Rabada at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And a related discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

IPL match templates

I've raised a discussion here about the use of templates for each and every match on this years' IPL (example - {{2018 IPL match 2}}). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

ICC Annual Ranking Update

Hi, do you think this article is within the scope of Wikipedia? It provides the table of team rankings in all formats for the past 3 years. MT Train^Talk 12:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been bold and sent it to AfD. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit's on IPL Matches

Hi I recently updated IPL Matches starting from Match 1, But I want some more projects regarding IPL(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC))

Discussion of splitting out Australian cricket team in South Africa in 1993–94 from History of cricket in South Africa from 1990–91 to 2000

~~Please provide comments at Draft talk:Australian cricket team in South Africa in 1993–94. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)~~

Your question is oblique and goes to the heart of 11 tours of SA in the post-apartheid era which do not have a page on this site, unique amongst Test tours. It should be discussed at large rather than deliberately restricted. Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

See discussion below. We'll keep the thread here on the WP. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability of Test tours

Further to the point raised by User:AngusWOOF in the section #Discussion of splitting out Australian cricket team in South Africa in 1993–94 from History of cricket in South Africa from 1990–91 to 2000 above.

User:AngusWOOF raises his point pretty obliquely. ~~Here it is:~~ (striking out this. The statement below is not my stance on this but Marplesmustgo's statement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC) )

Every single Test tour since 1877, with the exception of eleven Test tours of South Africa from 1994 to 2004, has a separate page on Wikipedia. I have carried out a lot of work and every Test match up to 1985 now has a potted score on this site, but beyond that there are a lot of stubs on the lines of "1st Test - Match drawn".

I contend that every Test should have a potted score (a long-term aim) but every Test series should have a Wikipedia page. Every series already has its Wikipedia page with the sole exception of those 11 SA tours.

Is it reasonable to suggest each of those series should have its page now, even if the scores are stubs of the "1st Test - Match drawn" style, pending me getting into the 90s and adding potted scores to those articles? Or should they have redirects to "History of South African cricket, 1990-2000" when no other Test series has this? Marplesmustgo (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to discuss it here, then my questions are:

Should each Test Tour of (country A) in (country B) in (year/season) have its own article?
What are the acceptable sources that would suffice to show notability of the event? How many would suffice? It would have to be at least 2 to meet WP:GNG and have depth of coverage from WP:NEVENT

I look forward to your responses as this would be helpful to us who are focused on evaluating newly created articles or articles created from old redirects. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

If this question is aimed at me, which I think it is from your phrasing, the answer is (1) Wikipedia already answered the question - there have bee 800 Test tours since 1877 and all but 11 in South Africa have their own articles already, so yes and make it complete. (2) Cricket relies on very few sources, most of which are online. One scorecard suffices for them all. Wisden is enough. Cricket Archive is enough. Your suggestion of two is essentially fradulent and makes the uploading of articles more difficult. I can rely on Wisden for information without a second opinion. Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not aimed at you. I need someone besides you to answer this as we know your answer. GNG requires "multiple sources" which means 2 or more. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Test matches are widely reported with numerous secondary sources. They might be more difficult to find for some decades as they will be on paper, but you can be sure both national and international news reports are available. There are also plenty of cricket books published, and every Test tour will be covered in one book or another. Every Test series is notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

As per Jack N Stock, every Test tour is notable, cricinfo will have scorecards for all the matches and most likely match reports. go ahead and create the individual pages. Spike 'em (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

By that logic all first-class cricketers are notable because every single one is covered by CA (and CI, thereby fulfilling the multiple sources thing) and therefore randomly deciding some are nonpermissible by arbitrary and contradictory non-NPOV rules is idiotic and hypocritical. Just a thought. Bobo . 22:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Though your fork has little to do with the Notability standards for whole tours, I will say that WP:NSPORT states that "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion" A prose-free/link-free entry on CA or CI would fall into this category this in my opinion. I checked the CI pages for this tour and all of the Test matches have prose reports (though they look suspiciously like WP:UGC). Spike 'em (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thankfully the links in question are neither prose-free (they contain text prose regarding the role of the player and their statistics) nor link-free (CA at least contains links to the relevant first-class statistics on each player). The word "trivial" is an irrelevant, indefinable weasel word which just provides an excuse to flout NPOV. As for "generic standards of inclusion", CA and CI's standards of "inclusion" need not, and do not, reflect those of our own, and as such are merely a trifle and are being used as a distraction to our goals as a project - which, in any case, are being grossly disrespected. Until the day we include information on every single Lancashire League player, etc, etc, since 1892, this need not remain a problem. Bobo . 14:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no prose on any CA page: listing batting/bowling style or teams played for is not prose, it is just a database categorisation. My meaning of "links"(you can define your own, but it is not what I mean) is a link to a prose article that makes some detailed mention of the player in question, not page of more detailed stats. Very few players on CA have links to articles (they seem to have very few on there), but most major players on CI do at least have these. Again on CI, for the most notable players there is some prose description of their history / playing style etc. Trivial may be open to interpretation, but it is part of the guideline, so if you have a problem with it, I'd suggest you make a suggestion to change it. Until it is removed from there, I will use it in my deliberations. Spike 'em (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, I mean the Profile / Latest articles sections on CI, there is very little of this type of content to help write an article on CA. Spike 'em (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

None of the statistics on CA are in any way "categorized". If you're going to include Wikipedia articles only from those which *have* prose text on CI, then you're onto a loser from moment one and there are probably thousands of articles we'd have to delete on those grounds. "Trivial" is open to interpretation because it is a completely nonsense, filler word, and the non-NPOV guideline, as I've said from moment one, directly contradicts what is written elsewhere. We are achieving nothing if we cannot commit to brightline criteria - the exact same brightline criteria which is used in every other team sport on WP, football, American football, hockey, American soccer, baseball, basketball... Bobo . 15:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Bobo192 what is the status of CA and CI as reliable sources? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's put it this way - if we suddenly decided that CA and CI were not permissible to be used as reliable sources, we would be rewriting 14 years' worth of history on the project and giving ourselves the needless task of rewriting and re-evaluating thousands of articles. If anyone wishes to do so, may I suggest that they know what should replace it before they come up with this idea? Just like with the notability guidelines, it's all well and good to pull out arguments like, "I disagree with the inclusion of this first-class cricketer's presence on WP" but without some way of deciding how to back this up with some kind of brand new, NPOV guideline which would see all first-class cricketers on an equal footing, these opinions are worthless and unjustifiable. Bobo . 16:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Pulling another one at random from out of the air, Thomas Smith (cricketer, born 1899) is another example of a cricketer, the prose content of whose article has not changed in the nine years since I originally wrote it. If anyone out there were able to come up with new information based on new, reliable sources, then this would probably have been done by now. By the same token, if there was someone out there who would now be perfectly willing to complain about the article's inclusion on WP based on ONESOURCE or the presence of nonreliable sources or whatever, I respectfully suggest they should have done that nine years ago before this became a problem. Bobo . 16:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If editorial control is good with CA and CI, like a handful of staff members, then I don't see a problem with it. However, if any registered user can change content there, as with a wikia, or IMDb, then that's a major problem. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The irony being, of course, that while Wikipedia is busy trying to officiate over what is or isn't a "reliable source", it itself is not a "reliable source"... Bobo . 17:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOURCE means you can't cite Wikipedia itself about the subject. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Modern day cricinfo is part of ESPN so is the work of journalists / editors. Some of the content from its early days seems to be contributed by users (their reports on the series you ask about has email addressees of contributers in it). I don't know what sorry of editing was done in those days, but their stats and current content is reliable. According to the source linked from ESPNcricinfo#History "In its first three years, Cricinfo was developed as a volunteer-driven tool, with a focus on archiving scorecards and other statistics of ODIs, test and first-class matches." This would cover 93-96. Spike 'em (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Although both are not without errors at times of course. CI I'm happy enough with and includes lots of Wisden archives as well. It has much more prose than CA. CA I have more issues with at times with regard to reliability - there is an element of user generated content, but not at the sort of level as imdb for example. There's occasionally the odd bit of prose by the way - Don Ambrose profiles for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Both CA and CI have strong independent editorial control. CA's ancestry comes from the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (ACS) and its editors have included leading cricket statisticians, some of whom merit WP articles in their own right. CI has more of a journalistic/publishing background, but is also reputable. CA does very little narrative, but its stats on matches, seasons, tours and individuals are its forte, and can be regarded as authoritative at least back to the mid 19th century. "User-generated content" isn't an issue on either CA or CI for the kinds of cricket that WP would seek to cover: FC, List A and T20 cricket at international and national level. Johnlp (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Having read quite a lot of the archive issues of the ACS journal recently, it seems clear that there are many different opinions about a whole host of things and a whole number of variations. I wouldn't call CA "authoritative" about anything to be frank - reliable, yes, certainly back to the late 19th century, but given the variations and the odd error that no more than that. Once you get to Minor Matches it is particularly sketchy, and that's often where there is the most interesting information and seems to be where it's most reliant on user data entry. Before the late 19th century I have more problems and at any point before the 1820s or so there are more questions again. It has its uses but, personally, I wouldn't overplay it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I already commented at Draft talk:Australian cricket team in South Africa in 1993–94. Briefly, it seems clear to me that every Test and, I would expect, every full-member international tour would generate such a level of press coverage that it would be very difficult to not show notability. Interestingly this isn't included in the notability guidelines and I can't find any discussion to show that it was ever discussed in the archives - although it may have been. It may be that it's been considered self-evident that tours like this should be notable.

One of the issues with the tours that I believe AngusWOOF is concerned about is that they took place before media archives from internet sources exist and after free access to online newspaper archives are available (The Times, for example, stops in 1985). I have no doubt that paper archives in the countries concerned would contain plenty of coverage. And I mean no doubt. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources can be WP:OFFLINE as well. Just that the stubs that are proliferating either had zero references or pointed to CA solely, and that's not enough to meet the coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who knows anything about cricket knows where to add a second source to biographies online as long as these are pointed out beforehand rather than sent to AfD for ONESOURCE or similar. As I've said before, there are a dangerous number of even Test biographies which do not cite either CA or CI - or one but not the other. Citing both would cancel out ONESOURCE. We probably should go through all the Test cricket biographies to make sure these articles are sourced in the most basic way. Ricaldo Anderson is one example of a non-Test player whose article prose hasn't even been altered since I created the article nearly 12 years ago! Worth noting that the subject-specific guidelines regarding first-class cricketers have not changed in this time. Bobo . 01:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This and the other article you mention average less than 1 view per day, so rather than it indicating that people are happy with their content / existence it is far more likely that no-one with any interest in tidying up your pages has come across them. If you really think that there are no more sources available to expand on the articles, then WP:WHYN says an article should not exist: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Spike 'em (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And no matter when the article was created (and not withstanding the fact that not all editors were around when you went on your stub creation splurge) WP:NTEMP states "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.", so there is no limit on how long someone can wait before raising issues with an article. Spike 'em (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If you can convince me that subject-specific article inclusion criteria have changed with regard to first-class players since I've been around, that's all well and good. Bobo . 22:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that no one has come across them necessarily. Smith will be difficult to expand - I found a middle name but that's it. His name doesn't help - although there must be a reason why he was on the Gold Coast. I can't find an obit in Wisden either which is a shame. I think there's a Hampshire book isn't there? That might have something.

In similar sorts of circumstances you can sometimes find good stuff - from Wisden, Hart's Army Lists, school or university registers and so on. Or you run across something in a book or they turn out to be famous for something else entirely. But working them up takes time and that's where the problem is - there are so many cricketers and someone has got to either stumble across the article or be working methodically through some list or other. And there aren't many people doing that. Oh, hello by the way. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Player Infobox- Domestic Teams

Many players like Chris Gayle, Dwayne Bravo and Kieron Pollard have become globetrotters and play for many domestic teams across various leagues. As User:Spike 'em has mentioned on Template talk:Infobox cricketer that Gayle has played for 21 teams up-till now. I could not find the discussion which User talk:Galobtter(pingó mió) mentioned in reply. My suggestion would be that expand the number of teams in domestic sections and also increase parameters for mentioning the league in which the team is (e.g- Mumbai Indians (IPL)). Because with so many similar named teams it is not easy to understand form infobox. Footballers have 4 parameters for each domestic team and I believe that league and appearances would be more useful. Shubham389 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

What about a seperate "T20 team information" heading and section, for all the T20 teams; but still, it is way too long IMO - is pushing his statistics - more important information - down, and what not. Each team in the section mattered more before T20 leagues so it makes sense to exclude them, as being ephemeral Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There have been suggestions to completely overhaul the player infobox, but they never gain the required traction.

A couple of points:

If Gayle keeps going like this he'll end up with 30-odd teams and infobox will be worthless as it will be so long and unreadable (it has probably reached this level already)

The infobox is not meant to have information not found in rest of article : a number of his teams are not mentioned in the main body of the article. Spike 'em (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussion is Archived here. Please also check out some trial versions of infoboxes by Harrias and Me. Spike 'em (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion link. It has been discussed in December 2015 and November 2017 but no consensus has been made on how to start it even though every one agrees there is a serious need for the change. I like the T20 country-wise infobox but there would be a additional challenge for leagues like Tamil Nadu Premier League and Karnataka Premier League. My suggestion would be when a player plays only T20 for a team it should in separate collapsable set in hide mode. But to generate a final consensus should there be a focused discussion on Template talk:Infobox cricketer and may be then we can start changing the infoboxes.Shubham389 (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Even though the previous discussion didn't have that much participation, there wasn't any strong opposes to the ideas. I say be bold and go for it and see who pops up to disagree. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Could this be implemented using child infobox which would collapse by default inside the main infobox? That would (I think) allow a modular approach to be taken? Which might be easier - we could then deploy the T20 infobox when it's needed and stick with the main one with when its not needed. Would that work? Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals. Bermicourt (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The one feature on the old cricket portal that isn't replicated on the cricket project main page is the "On this day..." feature. I think this is quite nice to have, but I don't have a clue how to get it transferred across to our main page, or whether the background files that keep it ticking over might need renaming if the portal disappears, which seems likely. Johnlp (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting... Johnlp, does that mean you would not oppose deletion of this particular portal? If the WikiProject does not want to maintain it, then that's the logical thing.

Unfortunately this has become something of a test case, and people from outside the WikiProject are being encouraged to update the portal. Is there any point in this, long term? Andrewa (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a deletion, it would be a merge. — The Transhumanist 07:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In a way, yes... but in terms of the RfC, I think it would be a deletion, see below. Andrewa (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The files could still be kept at Portal:Cricket/Anniversaries/January/January_1 etc, or could easily moved by an admin/page mover using the move subpages functionality (to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket); transfering it would be easy. (could add it to the cricket project page now without the transfer of pages) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There's another WikiProject willing to upgrade and maintain it: The Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals. And it falls within the scope of that WikiProject as well.

The display boxes "Featured article", "Selected picture", "Featured list", and the "In the News" feature don't appear to be displayed on the WikiProject page. Even if they were moved to there, they would seem out of place. — The Transhumanist 07:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The "On this day..." feature struck me as the only one on the Portal that would be suitable for the WikiProject page, being self-updating (and therefore low-maintenance, though it could of course be added to). The WikiProject page's casually updated "features" of recent deaths, featured articles and articles under threat of demotion/deletion perform to my mind a more useful news function than the static features displayed on the Portal. I've had the Portal on my Watchlist for a dozen years and more, and it's barely altered in that time, so I'd not miss it if it disappeared, if any useful parts were distributed elsewhere. Johnlp (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The question here still is, is anyone here at this WikiProject interested in maintaining this portal? If not, then yes, perhaps WikiProject Portals might be. But if not then there's a case for merge or deletion, IMO, either of which means the end of this portal as such, and supports the claim in the RfC that this is an example of a portal that we'd be better off without. Andrewa (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There is more than one type of good portal. Some are actively maintained with the latest news on a daily basis. That's not necessary here; plenty of other websites will give me today's ODI score and this year's test schedule. What we can do is make a decent portal on a one-off, fix-and-forget basis, avoiding topics which no one may care about in five years. (So W. G. Grace goes in, but not this season's teenage sensation.) We can create an illusion of regular change with automation such as random selected articles and an "on this day" based on the current date, none of which requires ongoing effort. Does a cricket enthusiast want to take this job on, or would you prefer to leave it to the portal squad? Certes (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:2009 ICC World Cup Qualifier

Please see the deletion discussion for this template here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Statistics update of IPL franchise

Is it required to update statistics of IPL franchises after each match? Like recently done for Kings XI Punjab Or we should consider WP:NOTSTATS and need to update after end of season? 42774 (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the IPL so it'll get done whatever anyone here says - it's the nature of things on IPL related articles. To be honest, on the page you link to there are just a mass of tables without context anyway. That's a bigger issue in my view. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

My view on this – I'm personally okay with the article overall and also with both the updating after individual matches or after the entire season is done, as editors may please. Regards. Cricket246 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

ESPNcricinfo citation

Hi. As per a discussion a month ago, it was a consensus that while using the particular site as a source of reference the name "ESPNcricinfo" (which is the name of the site) will be used and not "ESPN Cricinfo" or "Cricinfo". But even after that a certain user is being disruptive and changing all my edits without any proper explanation like in Nand Kishore, Abhijit Deshmukh, Virender Sharma, Anil Dandekar, Krishnappa Gowtham, KM Asif and so on. I request you all to see to this and decide what should be done as an experienced editor isn't sticking to consensus, repeatedly deleting the agreed upon format and in the edit descriptions calling me out by names saying "the rat is back" and so on! Cricket246 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Cricket246 being a WP:DICK again. "Cricinfo" on its own is also fine. And also keep an eye on this troll's edits on 2019 Cricket World Cup too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The name of the company is "ESPNcricinfo"... The Wiki page is also named ESPNcricinfo... Cricinfo is not an official name anymore as clearly the name has changed and it was the former name so it's not really fine... Show me one place where it's officially used... Any more counter arguments?? The name is officially "ESPNcricinfo" ask that will stay, if anything else is to be used then a clear consensus has to established among members at first before making such changes!! Cricket246 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Cricinfo is also fine. Don't you have anything better to do than change a date here and there and a C from upper to lowercase? The answer is no, incase you were struggling. You add zero value to this project, a total net drain to everyone. Go find something productive to do with your life or get lost. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I wouldn't go as far as that, but I do agree that there are more important things that need addressing by this project than writing that website's name "correctly". As long as each article is internally consistent, I couldn't care less, and neither should anyone else, IMO. Why not create some articles about old international tours that don't currently have them or something? – Pee Jay 09:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I was working towards the consistency part there as each article isn't consistent. Some websites have Cricinfo and some have ESPNcricinfo so I was trying to achieve a consistency on that ground. If any user thinks my edits are petty and not important but at the same time believes both are okay then why are my edits being repeatedly overturned? And is this amount of personal abuse allowed to be hurled at someone just because there is some opposing views on something? I don't think someone can tell me to get lost or prevent me from editing as this site is for all and not someone's personal property. I really don't understand why an user is always abusing me even in a project talkpage and it is being tolerated by all too. Maybe just because I don't give in to his so-called dictatorship approach in this project and also I'm not afraid to question the edits made by the user those are indeed questionable. Personal abuse hurled in this manner doesn't look good but seems to be okay and well accepted here! I just try to help in the smallest of ways possible, I agree that my contributions are simply nothing compared to the huge contributions by you all but at least I'm trying to do something as per my own capacity. Do I deserve insult and abuse for that? Cricket246 (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there was any agreement at all as it happens. I believe I mentioned that I preferred not not use the ESPN on the grounds that it's possible that at some point it might be sold by the company, which would mean a tonne of renaming issues. A bit like Sophia Gardens might have done... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that people don't go systematically changing Cricinfo/CricInfo to ESPNcricinfo without a good reason (eg poor or inconsistent citations) if the version that is cited used that name at the time. If you're citing the article now, you should use ESPNcricinfo. Hack (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

PSL/IPL vandalism fro IP range 39.57

Just a heads up that the above IP range has been targetting various cricket articles, mostly around the PSL and IPL. They keep moving address each day and have been blocked multiple times. The most recent ones are here, ready for a rangeblock request. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

More vandalism from this IP range, now targeting SCL too. 42774 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I requested a rangeblock and it's been put in place for one month. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Rain stopped play

It's suggested in this video that in 1931 the captains decided between themselves whether or not the pitch was playable, not the umpires. Is this true?

BTW and IMO Rainout (sports)#Cricket deserves expansion.

"Rain stops play at Old Trafford
A black-backed gull
Wades at deep mid-wicket."

(Heard once, never forgotten.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Scorecard formatting

What do other editors think of type of styling and the possibility of it creeping into non-IPL scorecards, like this? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good and fresh. May be worth a try? Will be interesting to find out what the other editors reckon? Cricket246 (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the look of it, but more to the point, the way the templates have been used is awful. Harrias ^talk 17:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Harrias, we don't want to go creating a separate template for every cricket match. What we have at the moment is fine, perfectly reusable, and quick and easy to maintain. It shouldn't exist in the IPL articles, but they're a law until themselves. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think in that case this type of styling should be removed from IPL matches as well because uniformity is important. I'll get working towards that. About the template thing some user got it incorporated and there is a big discussion about it in the talkpage as well if I remember it correctly! Cricket246 (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that formatting looks terrible, too. It's nice someone has been bold, but all that extraneous markup/coding to add a bit of colour, isn't worth doing. If that styling was to be implemented across the scorecards, then the changes should be done on the master templates, and not at page level (not that I'm supporting that change to the templates, of course). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That on a large scale is going to make pages less readable than they already are - the colour and border styling will make it more difficult to pick out the information than it is at present - which on pages with large amounts of scores is already difficult. From a usability perspective the simpler the formatting the better. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello to All :@Cricket246: :@Lugnuts: :@Harrias: :@Joseph2302:,I want to say that I created the border format in a Template in a IPL 2018 Templates.I think it looks good. if You see 2011 Indian Premier League there is also a Border Style Text Formatting. So my question is that I created the template Border in 2018 IPL.i think everyone should be appreciate this because HARD WORK has its own voice. Please think again on it & please support to IPL 2018 Template in Border Style.if everyone has a suggestion for IPL Template 2018 please message me on my talk page.i will improve this (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC))

Hi MMRP. In short, effort/hard work (while encouraged and is welcomed), doesn't automatically mean a new style/change/improvement will be implemented. The scorecard templates on WP have been in a stable state for a long time, and ideally you would need a WP:CONSENSUS to get something as important to the project to change across the site. Consensus can change, but for something so important to this project, it's unlikely to do so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I just want to say I think this looks horrible and definitely shouldn't be implemented. – Pee Jay 11:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

^ what PeeJay said. Seriously - usability and accessibility issues with adding stuff like this are crucial. For precisely the same reasons that we should be concerned about the use of colour to communicate meaning and stuff like the overuse of flags. And it looks lousy. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

T20I Status format

I had initiated a discussion regarding the format choice for displaying teams in tabular vs indexed format on Talk:Twenty20 International. Please respond if you are interested. Thanks Shubham389 (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Women IPL

Is there any page already created regarding IPL Trailblazer vs IPL Supernova? Thanks Sagavaj (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Cricketer at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few other articles created by MTKASH that need similar attention. Spike 'em (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Spike. And thanks for logging the following at AfD:

I'll sort out a group-nom for the rest. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As promised, I've put the rest in a group nomination. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Another one for your consideration. Spike 'em (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

These AfDs are not appearing at the cricket deletion listing pages, though the broader AfD discussions indicate that they have been sent there. Does someone know how to fix this? Johnlp (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I've seen this issue before, but thought it was how I had logged the AfD initially. Maybe someone at WP:VPT could help with this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Royal London One-Day Cup page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Two U19 cricketers

Hi. Now the AfD above has ended (in delete), there are two more u19 cricketers that I'd like to bring to the attention of the project. Neither of them has (yet) played in a FC/LA/T20 match, but I was wondering if anyone felt they met WP:GNG. Here they are:

Austin Waugh of Australia, and son of Steve Waugh. I think he currently is more a case of WP:NOTINHERIT than any real notabilty. I spotted the article a while back, but thought he may make a debut, as the Australian domestic competitions were still live at the time.

Faisal Jamkhandi of Canada. The joint-leading wicket-taker (with two other cricketers) at the U19 World Cup. If he was the leading wicket-taker in his own right, I might feel this would meet WP:GNG.

I thought I'd raise these two here first, before heading to AfD (if needed). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

For Jamkhandi there's this article. But it's not any more than there is for Abraash Khan. If one's notable based on one fairly in depth article then the other is in my view - on the grounds that it's close to meeting GNG. But everything else I can fine seems to be passing references so at present it would be a very weak article in terms of sourcing, unless there's something majorly significant in Canadian cricket literature.

Of course, once the Canadian T20 stuff kicks off it might just be that guys like this gather enough coverage to meet the GNG.

In terms of Waugh, there is a lot of decent coverage of him. Just about all of it mentions his father straight off the bat, but the coverage is pretty widespread and over a pretty decent length of time. Arguably there is a lot better coverage of him than there is of a great many young professional players with a handful of First XI appearances to their name, so the argument comes down to whether the notability is linked mainly to whom his father is. I could see that either way, but I'd be inclined to not worry too much about the article for now - if he falls out of cricket in the next couple of years without playing for anyone then, sure, come back to it, but compared to some of the coverage in other biographies there's an absolute tonne of stuff on him. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks BST. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

2018 Sri Lankan cricket pitch fixing and betting scandal

I have created a new article on the pitch controversial scandal relating to Galle International Stadium which has caused betting and also helped bookmakers to maximise money and help to expand the article and also help to improve the quality of the article. I also created the article on Robin Morris who previously served as a domestic cricketer now involved in match-fixing scandal. Abishe (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan in England

An IP editor is instant on adding in detail that one player was not picked, and including this in the squad section. I don't see the relevance of adding this, unless it was say the captain who was absent due to injury or suspension, as lots of players are not selected. Thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The player in question is arguably the outstanding Pakistan bowler, currently, and his injury made the news because his absence from the tour impacted team selection and prospects. The entry is sourced to cricinfo and other sources can be found if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.245.243 (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I've added the BBC report so that's two reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.245.243 (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Funny how this "new" user found this page without any help, and knows of several technical wiki-terms. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia isn't such a difficult site to master, especially as I have considerable relevant experience professionally. All you have to do is follow simple instructions. As for finding this page, I merely looked at your contributions. Please don't try to be clever and make out that inexperienced users are incapable of using the site. I am looking for a help page at the moment, though, so you might see me there in a few minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.245.243 (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It's starting again! Spike 'em (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

As to the dispute at hand, it seems a bit WP:TMI. It clearly passes WP:V, not sure if a pre-tour injury is notable enough to be included. Spike 'em (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Spike. From looking at other (typical) tours, it seems most teams have a pre-selection squad, with as many as 25 to 30 players. Several of them don't make the cut for a variety of reasons, hence why I don't it's worth noting this one player. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Given what's been said at the Teahouse (having not edited significantly or disruptively since January) is this enough to go to SPI with? I'm always wary of the dangers with IP addresses as it can lead to outing location really easily. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think so. My understanding of the SPI process isn't that great, but I believe a checkuser report can be run to link it back to other account(s). If it is a banned editor, at least we'll know what IP ranges to look out for in the future. I'm more than happy to compile a list, as I've done in the past for other issues. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The range is jumping around so much though - any of the XXXX English cricket season articles show that, for example. It all matches patterns, but it's moving so frequently (see here which tallies with recent comments at the Teahouse). The editing is often reasonable - my problem is much more with the dishonesty: if the editing were done and then the editor moved on it would be reasonable. It's probably reasonable to put together what we have from this most recent incarnation and note that there have been a wide range of IP addresses used with what appear to be deliberate attempts to jump around. It's all from a major ISP so there won't be very much in the way of blocking done. Can I leave you to start that if you think it's worthwhile? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I am of the same opinion: if he wants to do a bit of IP editing then I'd happily leave him to it. It is picking meaningless fights with people, WP:POINTY edits and then grand claims of this project / the whole of WP being the wild-west as soon as someone calls him out on it. Spike 'em (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've added an SPI for the record. Spike 'em (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Spike - I've added a comment there. I guess this is all there is to do on bank holiday with the Test match ending inside four days... :D Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Gillette Cup infoboxes

In looking at the 1973 Gillette Cup article, I noticed that the infobox shows the Adminstrators as the ECB, a body which didn't exist until 1997. Other Gillette Cup articles of the same era say the same. Should that be changed to the TCCB? I didn't want to make any changes myself in case this project has a standard which it uses for these infoboxes. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason for this inaccuracy. Spike 'em (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at a few of them, it has been that way since the articles were created in 2010. I suspect there was a large amount of c+p involved and it is an inadvertent oversight. Spike 'em (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)