Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
WT:CRIC
Click here to add a new section.
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket: edit · history · watch · refresh

Cricket people

  • notable players without an article: Louise Browne, Alison Hodgkinson, Miriam Knee, Tim McIntosh, Mamatha Maben, Sheila Nefdt, Margaret Peden, Rasanjali Silva, Tom Pearce, Stephanie Power, Shantha Rangaswamy, Karen Smithies
  • articles re players from 1787 to include : Jem Broadbridge, Edgar Willsher, Jemmy Dean, Ned Wenman, William Hillyer, Thomas Howard (cricketer) and numerous other players from the early and middle 19th century, many of whom will fit in the category:All-England Eleven cricketers

Teams

Misc

  • Umpires: ICC International umpire panel ICC Associates and Affiliates umpire panel ICC Elite referee panel
  • Miscellaneous: Match fixing in cricket
  • Cricket World Cup: Cricket World Cup Trophy, History of the Cricket World Cup, Cricket World Cup qualification, Cricket World Cup hosts, National team appearances in the Cricket World Cup, Records and statistics in the Cricket World Cup

Lists

  • A large number of "list" articles were created in the early days of WP:Cric with the good intention of capturing all articles re a particular topic. Since the introduction of categories, these lists have tended to lose their original purpose; and, with the increasing number of articles, they have become large and difficult to maintain. It has been suggested in WT:Cric that these lists should become sub-pages of the project and so they are being added here in case anyone is interested in maintaining them or has further use for them.
  • List of cricket topics

/archive1 | /archive2 | /archive3 | /archive4 | /archive5 | /archive6 | /archive7 | /archive8 | /archive9 | /archive10 | /archive11 | /archive12 | /archive13 | /archive14 | /archive15 | /archive16 | /archive17 | /archive18 | /archive19 | /archive20 | /archive21 | /archive22 | /archive23 | /archive24

Contents

[edit] Succession boxes

Is there support for creating some succession boxes for world record holders in cricket? I was on the verge of creating one, following the update I just made to Jack Hobbs (following the question I just set on the quiz), but I've looked around some other sporting articles and there don't seem to be succession boxes for world records. Just medals/titles etc. Is this a policy? I think it would be helpful to be able to trace the progression of records and to see extraordinary lifetime achievements of individuals summarised in their articles. --Dweller 09:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a reasonable idea, and the absence of precedents should not be an obstacle - cricket the innovator! At the same time, there are literally thousands of "records" and biographical and team articles could become a bit noisy if every record held was listed in that way. A policy would need to be struck regarding the notability of a record for succession-box implementation.
Example: The highest 3rd wicket partnership in the Sheffield Shield/Pura Cup (390* by Julien Wiener and Jeff Moss, Vic v WA at St Kilda 1981-82) is notable, and the succession of Shield 3rd wicket partnership records is notable, and the succession of Victorian all-wicket partnership records is notable; but the succession of 1981-82 3rd wicket partnerships is not, and the succession of 3rd wicket partnerships at St Kilda is not.
Let's start with a sample - say, highest individual score in Test cricket - and see how it looks. Darcyj 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
OK... I'll look into it. Never done a succession box before, it'll be fun working it out. --Dweller 10:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
RE: Darcyj's mention of highest 3rd wicket partnership above. Whilst I'd agree that this is a notable record, I don't think it would warrant a succession box. I'd stick to just one or two for the really significant record successions. Ollie 11:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodyline renommed for FA

Just to inform the Project members that I have renommed Bodyline for FA status. I hope this is not tantamount to cadging votes - I think I'm alright as it's not technically a vote process, but a debate and I've seen similar notes on other Wikiproject talk pages. If I shouldn't have posted this, sorry (and no doubt it'll be blanked quickly enough). --Dweller 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope WP:Cricket have a look at the article and comment, as they see appropriate, on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bodyline.
Dweller, it's been my experience in the past that a request here will get WP:Cricket participants looking at the article and commenting on the WP:FAC - but that their comments are genuinely targeted on whether they think it should be a FA - you won't get any blind, unthinking "support" votes:) Good luck with it, though! jguk 12:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd certainly hope not! anyway it's not a vote, I'm pedantically informed :-)--Dweller 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highest Test innings succession box

Further to the above thread, I've created Template:Cricket scores succession box.

So far, I've only applied it to Brian Lara and you'll see why if you click on him. I can't fathom how to make it appear on just one line. Please do chime in if you can help. I had to create Template:S-ach too, to create an ambiguous enough heading for any and all records. --Dweller 10:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the box should list the actual score, because succession boxes only have three sub-boxes (previous incumbent, job title, next incumbent). Or at least, it might be possible to keep it if it can fit into each of the three sub-boxes (but that still doesn't work well for highest total runs or highest total wickets). Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
With the four boxes, you've got a total width of 130%, which might well be the cause. Best way to solve this would be to not transclude s-bef, etc and just write a completely separate template. Ollie 11:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made it work by placing it within the {{startbox}} and {{endbox}} tags of the existing nest of boxes, and by using the variable years to enter the value of achievement. The same technique could be used to adapt the basic succession box template for any type of succession. How's that? Darcyj 11:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Only downside is that we don't know when the player held the record, which leaves me at a loss with many of the older holders. I'm not sure what to suggest to solve the issue though. Ollie 11:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No, he's left the date in too - check out Lara's page. I think that's very sneaky... and clever. Nice one. Anyone want to comment on layout/content/positioning before I roll it out to Lara's predecessors? "Current" or "Current holder"? Also, I think as a world record it should be the top succession box for any player that already has one... --Dweller 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't spot that, my bad. Ollie 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Disagree with the last sentence by Dweller. Captaincy is the highest honour in cricket, so I prefer that succession to be pre-eminent, followed by award achievements such as Wisden Cricketer of the Year, followed by playing achievements such as world records, followed last of all by non-playing achievements and roles (if any). Darcyj 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see a need for this succession box - particularly as having the highest Test score is not a role in the same way as being an international captain is. The achievement of getting the highest Test score should be mentioned within the text. If you want to add details of who preceded and succeeded the player to that feat, again, the text is the best place for it. jguk 12:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort put in by Dweller, but I think I mostly agree with jguk - there are already far too many of these box things littering our articles already (see Ian Botham) and significant achievements of this sort should already be mentioned in the article text. Cricket is inherently amenable to a mass of statistics, and it does not help to add too many to a general-interest encyclopedia article.
However, IF we are going to do something like this, it should be limited to a handful of very important records, such as those listed on List of Test cricket records and List of One-day International cricket records (highest score, best bowling analysis, most international caps...). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[after edit conflict] :I agree with Jguk. Too many succession boxes make an article look ugly and I can only see a need for them if a reader wants to navigate through a series of articles in that order. I cannot envisage that being the case for a highest Test innings record. This information belongs in prose, not tables. Also, is Lara going to have 2 boxes as he's held the record twice? I also reckon that Hayden's position in the table is misleading as him being ahead of say Hutton might imply a superiority when Hayden made his record against a weak Zimbabwean side and Hutton against the Aussies. That needs to be explained properly. —Moondyne 12:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting debate. I thought there might be some dissent, which is why I wanted to solicit some consensus before blazing away. I agree with some of the comments made. Too many boxes would look silly, but I disagree that they're not useful. I think User:ALoan's right. If we limit their use to only the most prestigious records in Tests and ODIs, it would seem sensible. I'd like to know if this is the Project members' consensus, so please do continue to comment. --Dweller 09:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but only for (i) highest innings score; (ii) total career runs; (iii) total career wickets; and maybe one or two more I haven't thought of. I wouldn't include most of the things on List of Test cricket records, such as most runs in a series or most Test centuries. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought any individual record of reasonable importance would be fair game, hence I started work on some. As with anything on Wikipedia, it is the court of public opinion which decides the notability. Darcyj 12:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
All of these records (and many more) are notable - taking five wickets or a hat-trick is notable; scoring a century is notable. The question is whether a box of some sort is necessary. Like Stephen, I would argue not, in most cases. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a succession box takes up a lot of space, and should only be used for very important things, otherwise the top players will have loads of them. Your earlier example of highest third wicket stand in Sheffield Shield matches is a long, long way from being important enough, in my opinion. I wouldn't even include highest partnership in Test cricket. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a good example of succession boxes gone mad at Barry Bonds. As long as things don't end up looking like that, I think the idea is OK. Ollie 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh categories CfD

Please see :

Bangladeshi cricketers by century

and give your views.

I've stated my position on the page already. I'm simply making this category consistent with an overall restructure taking place throughout category:History of cricket. --BlackJack | talk page 17:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The nomination has been withdrawn and I've thanked the guy/girl in question. Thanks also to the cricket members who wrote in to support our position.
If we have any Bangladeshi members, anything you can contribute will be most welcome. --BlackJack | talk page 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Lara

I was quite shocked by how out of date this article is. It's also littered with typos. I'm going to get stuck into it and do my best. I welcome any and all assistance. --Dweller 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a go at this too (can't take much of the credit though!)- please can someone else have a look at the discussion at talk:Brian Lara and see what they think about our suggestions?--Gavinio 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:CricketBot/stubs

Some of you may have noticed already, but I've created a new page, User:CricketBot/stubs. This lists biographies which are stub-length, together with the number of Tests and ODIs the player has played. This should help in identifying players who are a priority for an improved article.

(This replaces the previous page User:CricketBot/substubs).

Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


This is good stuff, Stephen, and something struck me immediately when I started scanning the list. There seems to be a lot of Kiwis in there. I'm currently working on the histories of the rest of the world outside England and I've been surprised by the limited amount of material about NZ cricket, which I'm going to try and rectify. If anyone has anything they can input, please do so when you have time. Every little bit helps. --BlackJack | talk page 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodyline FAC

Hi. I and some others have dealt with (edits/dismissing) a number of comments on Bodyline arising from the FAC. There's one outstanding one, concerning fair use on an image. Way outside my experience here! Can someone pls help? --Dweller 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I've never done this before, there is information at Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale and the main Wikipedia:Fair use page. Basically you need to justify why you think the image can be used under the terms of fair use. I haven't done this myself as I'm not sure that the usage can be justified under fair use, but I am not very familiar with the article, so I will leave it to someone in the know.
It also looks like you ought to add a source for the image and information about who holds the copyright. Sorry I can't be of much more help. Ollie 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big turn

This drivel has appeared in the main cricket category. It is yet another example of the tedious "corridor cricket" nonsense. Could someone with admin functions please remove it and do whatever is necessary to prevent repeats. Thanks. --BlackJack | talk page 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big turn. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This could probably have been prodded, as I don't think it would have met with any controversy. Ollie 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Cricket_9cf1.html"