Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
The current discussion of CCOTM is Cricket.


FA appeal for articles related to the 2007 Cricket World Cup

These articles have free pictures of acceptable quality which make them viable to be shown on the Main Page if they become FAs in time for the World Cup.

Players and coaches: Flag of Sri Lanka Muttiah Muralitharan; Flag of Pakistan Inzamam-ul-Haq, Danish Kaneria, Bob Woolmer; Flag of South Africa Shaun Pollock; Flag of India Sourav Ganguly, Harbhajan Singh; Chris Gayle; Flag of England Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff, Paul Collingwood, James Anderson, Michael Vaughan, Monty Panesar, Liam Plunkett, Sajid Mahmood, Ravinder Bopara; Flag of Australia Adam Gilchrist, Glenn McGrath, Ricky Ponting, Andrew Symonds; Flag of Netherlands Ryan ten Doeschate

Teams: Flag of India India; West Indies

Issues: Flag of India Chappell Ganguly controversy

Main: Cricket World Cup (13 March 2007)

Copyediting requests: Flag of India Indian cricket team

Peer review: West Indian cricket team (peer review)


Feel free to add article suggestions with appropriate free pictures to this template
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

Cricket people

  • notable players without an article: Rajeshwari Goel, List of New Zealand women Test cricketers, Elias Sunny

Teams & Countries

  • domestic cricket coverage is needed re Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka & Zimbabwe: we need articles about domestic competitions and clubs in those countries
  • Complete the redlinks for governing bodies for 22 out of 32 associate and 49 out of 55 affilate members of the ICC - including 1 ODI team: Hong Kong Cricket Association, Namibia Cricket Board, Oman Cricket Board, Zambia Cricket Union (see list)

Misc

  • Miscellaneous: Match fixing in cricket

01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29
Shortcut:
WT:CRIC

Contents

[edit] cricket

can some on protect it or semi-protect it? its getting some heavy vandalisms. Some other cricket related articles are being vandalised often as well.--Thugchildz

[edit] Corruption in cricket

I was wondering if there should be an article Corruption in cricket? There is currently a very small article Betting controversies in cricket. Yet no doubt the issue is a huge one and is worthy of an article here. This came to mind after reading this article in the NZ Herald where one writer is arguing corruption makes the cricket world cup a joke. Any thoughts? - Shudda talk 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think its as a big now as it was before in the '90s because of ICC's strong stand against it and its anti corruption program, even if it still might exist its not that big.--Thugchildz 02:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's still very big. Even if it's not, the article would include a history of corruption in the game. I think an article like this would add significantly to cricket related content in Wikipedia. - Shudda talk 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It might be better to give the priority to that "Betting controversies in cricket" article. Though it says that it's "a history of cricket-related stub", it only deals with the last decade or so, when there's a lot to be said about the 18th and early 19th centuries, when the growth of the sport was largely driven by its suitability as a betting medium. JH (talk page) 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, but you'll have to be careful to avoid original research. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's an issue here unless people start looking up primary sources and editorialising. There will certainly be lots written about this, certainly enough to avoid original research being necessary. - Shudda talk 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a knee-jerk reaction to the latest here today, gone tomorrow news story. There has been corruption in cricket since the professional game began in the 17th century. It was financed by gambling interests right through the 18th century and there was always sharp practice. William Lambert, probably the greatest player of the early 19th century, was banned for life though he was almost certainly a scapegoat. Try to develop Betting controversies in cricket and leave it at that. --GeorgeWilliams 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That article certainly needs expansion then. It's only a stub and only mentions one incident. Considering all the great cricket articles out there this one is incredibly poor. - Shudda talk 01:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well there are only few proven "corruption" controversies and the rest is most of speculations that happens in all others sports too, so writing down speculation isn't really helpful in my opinions which doesn't leave much to write about.--Thugchildz 02:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Corruption is a major topic in cricket, more so then in many other sports (maybe not football, boxing or cycling though). It's not speculation. There have been all these reasons listed for the article not being larger and none of them add up. I don't want to assume bad faith, but it seems that there is an apathy to expanding this article because it's a negative aspect of cricket, not because it's unworthy of a detailed article. - Shudda talk 23:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, if you don't call it speculation than what do you call it? Unless it was proven how is it not speculation? I don't think there's much more corruption in cricket than any other sport(this might very little bit from sports to sports) but unless anything was proven, like some were in the '90s, you can't call it anything else than speculation. because there's gambling in other sports too, there's been problems in other sports too, it is as much of a major topic in cricket as it is in other sports. There's anti-corruption program for cricket and if the speculations were proven then the people would know. So you can't write much about stuff that's just speculation(not proven), on the other hand there's stuff written about the proven stuff though. That's why people don't pay much attention to it now unless its proven because until it is, its still mere speculation; just like there was when the referees were calling silly penalties against the Sea hawks in the super bowl 2 years ago. Plus this was just a knee-jerk reaction like GeorgeWilliams said because of the sudden death of Mr. Woolmer; although many don't see it as a related reason anymore. --Thugchildz 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the article I linked to at the top of this section, and read this one here from the bbc. It's not speculation, it happens, people have been banned, more people then the two mentioned in the Betting controversies in cricket article. Don't kid yourself that these are just rumours. There is even this list - List of cricketers banned for match fixing that's not comprehensive. Add to that players that have given pitch, and selection information to bookmakers and the list expands. Also read this Panorama transcript. It has people much more notable then you or I saying it is a problem. Just speculation? I don't think so. - Shudda talk 04:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No that's what I'm saying there's the few cases that's been proven and so that's all you could write about. Like I said, those in the article you provided were the only ones proven and so that's all you could write about the rest is still speculation. It's not hard to get, no matter what people say, whether it's you or i or a player, its still speculation until its proven via investigations. So all you can expand is upon those that were proven. Not hard to get.--Thugchildz 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Bore

Hello, i've written a series of articles today on Yorkshire First Class players and hope to write something about them all. I was annoyed to see that a piece I'd written on Michael Bore (Mike Bore) the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire bowler was flagged for speedy deletion because supposedly i had not asserted the importance of the subject. I assumed that any first class cricketer was worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Was this the action of a lone person who simply does not understand cricket or is it policy on Wikipedia to remove cricketers who are not fashionable enough? If someone could help me argue the case on the Michael Bore talk page I'd be grateful. Nick mallory 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC) nick mallory.

This is not uncommon, but WP:BIO makes it clear that "competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are normally regarded as sufficiently notable. For cricket, that means first-class or List A. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just out of interest, should we now expand that to include players who have played Twenty20 cricket in a national competition? Andrew nixon 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to have gone. Did you classify it as a cricket biographical stub? Did you categorise it adequately in line with other first-class cricketers? Did you supply some reputable sources such as Wisden or Cricket Archive in line with other biographies? Did you make clear that he was a first-class cricketer and that he played for Yorkshire and Notts with links to the two club articles concerned? I think you should also advise us on this page of who requested the speedy delete and who actioned it. I would persevere: expand it and recreate it.--GeorgeWilliams 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The article os still there, and no lonmger flagged as a deletion candidate. Could you have mistyped the name? JH (talk page) 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't mistype the name while looking for the Bore article again, it wasn't deleted, only flagged for deletion and that notice was thankfully removed after a short debate. Nick mallory 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory.

[edit] Edits to Stuart Clark

I see that the Clark is just like Curtley Ambrose stuff is back. Didn't someone get blocked for this some time back? I'm on Wikibreak... please can project members keep an eye on it. --Dweller 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was semiprotected, I don't know about blocking anyone. Anyway, I'm keeping an eye on it for now. Enjoy your Wikibreak - though you don't seem to be being very successful ;) →Ollie (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, not that again. They had teams of sock puppets and/or meat puppets working on it last time. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We can protect it, if need be. I see some dubious edits to other articles too. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that Clark is a target but any article being subjected to sustained vandalism must be protected. --GeorgeWilliams 20:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Cricketer update fields

I'm proposing some additional fields to Infobox Cricketer.

  1. Date of birth: (with the use of {{birth date and age}} which automatically calculates and inserts a player's age.
  2. Date of death: (if necessary)
  3. Status. I'm thinking of using coloured icons (active, semi-active, retired)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I support it, go ahead looks like a good idea--Thugchildz 06:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
First two sound fine, but I'd like to see an example of the status icons before I lend them my support. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 09:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I like putting the dates of birth and death in the infobox, but I don't like the sound of the status icons.
Also, what happens if the date of birth isn't given (as will be the case for all cricketers to start with)?
Maybe you could make some samples for us to look at.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the date of birth isn't available then have it so that it doesn't show up, using "If codes" so its not necessary--Thugchildz 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Like one and two. Per Ollie, like to see a sample for #3. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Britcher

Since the "sprotect" tag was lifted a few weeks ago, this article has been vandalised again three times by the same moron, although his IP address has now been blocked despite protests from genuine (presumably) users at that establishment (a school in Nebraska, apparently).

Is there any chance of the article being protected permanently so that it can only be edited by users with a minimum number of recorded edits? --BlackJack | talk page 17:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need. The article has been quiet for three weeks now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It rather depends on how long the current block of this address lasts. The article has been vandalised by the same person no less than eleven times in the four months since it was created. --GeorgeWilliams 20:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common sense and a precedent

The result of deletion proposal several Indian cricket teams in England is KEEP!

I recommend that everyone reads this discussion apart from the bit at the end by yours truly which was of no consequence. The real contributions came from ALoan, johnlp and BlackJack. Common sense at last and a precedent has been set for the next time a cricket stub is randomly challenged by some wandering "deletionist" (!) who cannot see the big picture. --GeorgeWilliams 18:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, I hear what you say, George, and I've added some content to some of these articles myself, as you have noted. But I'm personally not convinced that "articles" that are, essentially, devoid of content have any more merit than a redlink; and in that a redlink indicates work to be done, whereas a bluelink would suggest that a real article lies beneath, the redlink may give a slightly "truer" picture. In any case, the point now, I would reckon, is to try to ensure that these articles that have been "saved" from deletion are indeed expanded PDQ, with some real content. Because if they're not, then I suspect they'll be up for deletion again fairly soon, and defending them then will be even more difficult. Johnlp 19:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its better to have red links than nothing articles...but the redlinks should stay in those templates so someone can find and expand them.--Thugchildz 20:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting one. I agree with both points of view but obviously, as Thugchildz points out, the redlinks are only useful if the templates exist. I think this issue highlights a failing in Wikipedia which encourages creation of stubs and then doesn't use a different colour of link to signify them. Does anyone know if it would be cost-effective to have, say, a brown link for any reference that is classified as a stub?
Assuming a different link colour is not going to be provided immediately we have to consider what is the minimum content needed in these tour and season stubs.
Before looking at content, can I ask if anyone has any problem with the titles, the references, the overall layouts, the stub classifications and the categorisations of these articles? I presume not and that we are only concerned with content but if anyone does have an issue with the foregoing factors, can they please say so?
A typical Australian season stub begins with either:
This article is a review of the 18yy-zz Australian cricket season
Or:
The 19yy-zz Australian cricket season took place in late 19yy and early 19zz
The former has been deemed insufficient but the latter, as provided by another user, is still live. Yet neither say anything except that there was an Australian season in those dates. I suppose the first one infers it while the second positively states that it did take place. Is this inflection all that matters or should I actually provide one or two definite facts by saying something like:
In the 19yy-zz Australian cricket season, Victoria won the Sheffield Shield. The England team toured and played five Tests.
Would that be enough to ensure acceptance as a bluelink or do you think much more should be stated, even though the article is only a stub? I suppose what we are trying to understand is the minimum level of content that qualifies an article to be a stub? --BlackJack | talk page 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"Before looking at content, can I ask if anyone has any problem with the titles, the references, the overall layouts, the stub classifications and the categorisations of these articles?" I have a problem with the apparent supplying of a standard set of references in your stubs, even when some of them don't seem at all relevant to the particular stub in question. JH (talk page) 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agreeing with User:Jhall1, I have a problem with having references added that haven't been referred to in the creation of an article. It's happened today to Indian cricket team in England in 1959, which I've filled out as an article pretty much as fully as I intend to (and I think no one else has added much to, though of course they're welcome to), and the 1952 equivalent which is on its way but by no means complete. If the references were added as a "See also" I would have less problem, but I didn't use any of the books/annuals that have been added, and I doubt very much if some of them would have had much to say on the subject. While one wants the encyclopedia to be encyclopedic and to have a degree of "family feel" in terms of structure, I think it is dangerous to be too formulaic and very off-putting to be this prescriptive. Titles, fine. But these articles need content, much more than they need spurious references to books that haven't been referred to. Johnlp 23:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But sources like CricketArchive and Wisden have been referred to in order to establish that the tour or season actually occurred: i.e., that the title is valid and that there is real subject-matter to be developed. They are the basis of the article's existence. How, for example, do I know that an Indian cricket team toured England as long ago as 1911 given that India did not play a Test until 1932? I got the information from those general sources.

The point of having what I might call "summary references" at the outset is that they prove the event in question did take place or that the person in question did/does exist. When the article is developed beyond the level of a stub, more specific references can be introduced and perhaps some of the general references can be omitted.

What you have to remember about the tours and seasons is the question of scale and the problem of how a few people are actually going to create the articles in the first place. As I've said before, there is a syndrome among WP editors whereby the vast majority will expand an existing article but NOT create a new one: Have Article, Will Expand. But the converse is No Article, Will Not Create One.

So, the reality is that only way these articles were ever going to be created was by someone doing it in bulk and that means applying certain standards and a lot of clipboard use offline. WP insists on reputable sources as otherwise the speedy mob will hit the article as soon as it's created. As it happens, I think that's harsh but fair. If the article is a bare stub which is put there in order to encourage development as per WP:STUB and what have you, then its sources can only be those that prove the subject's existence like the specific CricketArchive tour itinerary page (note that I never just link to the CricketArchive homepage like some editors have done) or Wisden or the Hamlyn A-Z or Playfair. The ACS is a source for all cricket material and is any case a default if you are quoting CricketArchive.

I realise that might be four sources too many and that any one of those on its own might suffice among ourselves; but you have to remember the Wood For Trees brigade and I have taken the view that a few sources is better than one.

I admit I'm at fault in one respect and I do edit this as and when I spot it. Use of clipboard has led to oversights and meant that in some of the articles, you might see a reference to Playfair before WWII or to Hamlyn A-Z after 1982. Apologies for that sort of clumsiness which needs to be edited out where it is found. --BlackJack | talk page 06:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I still don't think it's right to reinsert references into articles when the works cited haven't actually been referred to in the writing of the article and when other real references have been cited and cover the "existence" of the article subject. And my view remains that stubs that merely say that something or other exists, providing no information beyond a re-statement of the article title, can't be justified, and that no amount of referencing will compensate for a total lack of content. I'd also be far less certain than you seem to be about WP editors' preferences for expanding articles rather than creating them: I simply don't know, and am happy myself to do either and to give others the choice to do either too. But I suspect we're not going to agree. :) Johnlp 12:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
John, I do agree that references should not be added unless they have actually been used to amend the content. I've removed the surplus references from India 52, 59 and 74.
I'm going to create a list of season and tour stubs that are short of meaningful content and do something about them. Any suggestions re a level or type of content will be welcome. --BlackJack | talk page 06:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] double standards

"Michael Phelps breaks five world records in swimming at the 2007 World Aquatics Championships; seven other records are broken as well." That's in the INT but the cricket world cup which had so many records broken could be up there even though the pages are updated with those. Why is that?--Thugchildz 00:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. There are no precedents on ITN, as you've been told many times.
  2. There's no disparity anyway. The swimming world championships have just finished. The news item appears to be a wrap-up, and we've been (as good as) promised a line when the cricket world cup finishes.
  3. Your aggressive attitude on the ITN suggestions page is detrimental to the good reputation of WikiProject Cricket, in my opinion.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad.--Thugchildz 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First International Match

Several online sources note that the first international match between the US and Canada took place at the St George's Cricket Club in New York. this page from CricketArchive says that it took place in Montreal. Anyone know who's right?--Eva bd 12:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always read stories of it being in the United Stated. I've never heard of Canada as the venue. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.--Eva bd 14:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My money would be on CricketArchive. You could email them and ask them; I've found them very helpful. JH (talk page) 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
ACS thinks it was Montreal too, and gives the result ("Canada won by 23 runs") and a reference (Sixty Years of Canadian Cricket, John E Hall and RO McCulloch, page 266).[1] There was apparently a match on 28 August 1843 in Montreal between Toronto and New York, and one earlier that year in Toronto on 25 July was cancelled, but the teams did not call themselves national representative sides.[2] However, as you say, lots of pages say the match was held in New York - such as this scorecard.
Presumably the date is definitely 24 September 1844? CricketArchive lists a few other matches on Saint Helen's Island, including the Toronto/NEw York one in 1843 - [3] -- ALoan (Talk) 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting findings all around. I'll try e-mailing CricketArchive today and see what they say. I'll also see if I can find that source used by ACS. Thanks, all.--Eva bd 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've e-mailed Cricket Archive and just got a reply this morning. The respondent said that they are in the process of researching this match to try and find the full scorecard. I guess we'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, I'll probably leave it as New York and put something about the Montreal possibility in the reference citation.--Eva bd 13:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability criteria

I mentioned this somewhere above, but thought I should probably bring it to wider attention. As you know, the notability criteria currently state that anyone who has played a first-class or List A match is eligible. Should this be extended to include anyone who has played in one of the main Twenty20 competitions? Andrew nixon 13:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Twenty20 if played by teams involved in "first-class" or "ListA" cricket is a major contest. I think we need to make use of the term "major cricket" to summarise all the top levels of cricket as what is erroneously called "first-class cricket" is just one part of it. There is a good example in olden days when single wicket cricket involving teams of threes or fives was hugely popular just as Twenty20 is now. Single wicket in its day was more popular and more significant than eleven-a-side; Twenty20 is today more popular and more significant tnah the County Championship. --BlackJack | talk page 18:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See Andrew Johns. There have been celebriteis picked in 20-20 Matches for publicity stunts. No I don't think that 20-20 is serious enough or established enough as a genre to merit getting a bio simply for 20-20 matches. I feel we should concentrate on the important stuff as a first priority anyway. I haven't bothered to write anything for non internationals in my 15 months here. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but there have been "guests" in first-class cricket too. To take the question of Twenty20's notability a stage further, consider a Twenty20 match at Lord's between Middlesex and Surrey which is televised and has a crowd of 20,000 there. Is that less notable than Oxford v Cambridge whose players would not get a game if they tried to join the Oxfordshire or Cambridgeshire minor counties clubs? Yet Oxford v Cambridge is "first-class". --BlackJack | talk page 06:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Does playing for Oxford and Cambridge uni count as first class? are they county teams? In the case of 20-20 matches with 20k supporters -> boo for mesurements of merit along the lines of public consumption! We measure academics by academic publishments, so hopefully people think that we should measure cricketing achievement by cricket-scholarly measures, thereby placing Tests and First class above ODI and list A, and with 20-20 on a lower rung! Just on an idle thought, most Noble prizewinners don't win until about 30 years after their discoveries are published and then become part of the"orthodox establishment" so to speak. by that criteria, ODI cricket is only being "matured" about now. Heh, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The four University Centres of Cricketing Excellence (Cambridge, Durham, Loughborough and Oxford) are first-class (when playing against other first-class teams), as are the MCC.
But I don't see that there's an inconsistency here: the notability criteria for sportsmen (WP:BIO) suggest that competitors 'who have played in a fully professional league' should be considered sufficiently notable, and the domestic Twenty20 competitions are 'fully professional' as much as the County Championship is (whatever your opinions on whether twenty overs of random slogging should be considered a 'professional' display!). I know at one point we were discussing specific notability guidelines for cricketers, but I can't find anything in the talk archives here on a quick inspection. Is this where this idea of first-class or List A but not T20 comes from? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's true of course, unfortunately, 20-20 cricketers do count....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Andrew Johns is the only publicity stunt I can think of, and he's notable for non-cricketing reasons anyway. Cricket Archive considers Twenty20 important enough to have it's own statistical category for it, and not all Twenty20 matches go in it, in the same way as not all one-day matches go in the List A category. It probably doesn't apply to many players anyway, mostly those players from the Stanford 20/20 last year. If we're going to say that one first-class or List A game is enough to ensure notability, one Twenty20 should be enough to establish notability too, especially as both Cricket Archive and cricinfo give it a category in their statistics. If Cricket Archive lumped it in with their "misc" category, I'd be saying something different. Andrew nixon 08:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whilst we're on the notability criteria, I've created a page on a first-class cricketer that has been nominated for speedy deletion, Joseph Donnelly. I have put a {{hangon}} template on the page and explained by reasons on the talk page, and would appreciate any support on the talk page, or any edits to the article page that can assert the notability of the subject. Andrew nixon 16:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of notability. How high up the scale must a team be before it is considered notable for inclusion? There seem to be an abundance of people writing about teams which are far below the highest level of amateur competition specified at WP:BIO. I'm happy for fully professional, I'm happy for highest level of amateur comp - but I'm not happy for every high school cricket team to have an article, win loose or draw.Garrie 00:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Amateur teams are sometimes have articles more as social institutions...I guess teams in the Lancashire league, and those types of things are notable, but I don't think anything that is more than one rung below first class is notable. There's a lot of rubbish that needs to be cleaned out. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A high-school cricket team, or unremarkable village cricket team, should be speedily deleted under WP:CSD, A7. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What about ovals? At what point does a sportsground become worth writing about? I ask because Memorial Oval, Aquinas College is claimed to be an article where Australian State Womens cricket matches are held (Western Fury vs... well, it's not specified).Garrie 04:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The ground issue is a bit tricky. Unfortunately, women's cricket is played in rubbish venues usually in front of less than 100 spectators. There was a ladies' ODI played in Adelaide at Prince Alfred College once. I think we can just merge the ovals to the school article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight

The article, Cricket in Australia is the current Australian collaboration of the Fortnight. Any assistance you can provide to assist WP:AUSTRALIA in our aim of getting this article to FA standard would be much appreciated.--Mattinbgn/ talk 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] First class cricketers

I would just like to follow on from Andrew Nixon's point. I believe that all First class cricketers deserve and are worthy of their own article and not that I have found that a cricketer that has over 200 first class appearences is put up for deletion. This was the case for Trevor Ward before I edited it back before the user Garrielrons put it forward for deletion. I understand that they are brief but why can't it stay as it is ready for someone to expand on it when the time arises. Other articles that have been put forward for deletion I can understand like the players that never played First class or List A cricket but I believe that all players that ahve played either First class, List A or 20/20 as discussed above should have its own article and are notable enough to have their own article. I would be very pleased to hear people's responses to my query above. Thankyou for reading my concern and responding if you decide to 02blythed 00:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi,
I think part of the issue with Trevor Ward is the style of the article and the lack of appropriate wikilinks. I have given the page a quick tidy up, have a look at some of the things I have done, and try to incorporate them into other pages you are working on. If the page is "wikified" and looks like it has the potential to be a decent article, it is less likely to be nominated for deletion. –MDCollins (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree wholeheartedly with MDCollins above, that when the article leads with
Trevor Ward was born on January 18 1968 in Kent in England.
He captained the England under 19 team on one occassion
you have not presented him in as well a light as when it is re-cast to say
Ward has played county cricket for Kent, Leicestershire and Norfolk and is also an occasional off-spin bowler.
When someone is active in cricket into the 21st century, what they did in the 1980's would hopefully be trivial.Garrie 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I can sympathise with this problem.

I'm currently trying to write articles for every Yorkshire CCC player who's played first class cricket and I've had similar problems with editors marking them for deletion. A piece about Michael Bore, the Yorkshire and Notts bowler was flagged as was one on Matthew Wood, who's played over a hundred games. This one was flagged for deletion by an editor called Phillipe and it's still under discussion despite half a dozen people pointing out that it's perfectly valid.

Today a twelve year old American editor called TechWiz flagged an article I'd just posted for deletion and then wrote to me saying that ALL the articles I'd written on first class cricketers should be deleted as they weren't notable people. This was despite the article citing the right Cricinfo and Cricket Archive pages for reference and being linked in the Yorkshire Cricketers category.

I had to engage in a lengthy and tedious exchange with him, quoting the Wikipedia notability criteria for athletes several times, before he'd accept that such people are worthy of inclusion. He then criticised the articles for using terms like 'right arm bowler' and 'runs' as they wouldn't be understandable to anyone, like him, who didn't understand cricket.

Obviously when first written an article may not be perfect but I think we should point out when over zealous editors, often from countries and cultures which have no understanding of cricket, try to delete articles without bothering to research their validity. This wastes our time and puts people off contributing. Nick mallory 04:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory.

I wouldn't worry too much when these things happen. It will simply blow over. Anyway Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TeckWiz_2 -> the user you spoke to believes that writing articles is irrelevant to becoming a good adminstrator and helping to manage Wikipedia. This is probably why the community reacted so negatively to his request to become such an administrator. This can be easily fixed up in the case of an AfD if it is done wrong. Anyway, great work on those articles, although I have to say that you need to clean up your use of language as your articles have a high amount of editorialising and hagiography. In particular, please note WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Blnguyen. Most of the articles I've done recently are very short and just state an obscure player's bare facts and figures - which is why some of them have been immediately flagged for deletion as previously discussed. The pieces I've expanded on the important men like Hedley Verity or George Hirst are more colourful because the subjects deserve a more in depth and interesting treatment but if you and other people think they need pruning that's perfectly understandable.

I'll return to them and edit them again but as I only wrote them in the last day or two my changes are still in their infancy. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia writer and I'm quite happy to admit that my writing style is not a perfect fit for the drier accepted form here. Quoting Herbert Sutcliffe's high opinion of Arthur Dolphin's wicket keeping skills for instance is not hagiography in my opinion, it's evidence supporting an assertion that he was a fine cricketer, but I'm sure I have overstepped the mark in places and that such hyperbole will be edited away. Thanks for your interest. Nick mallory 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

I don't think they need pruning in terms of length, just that the language needs to be more concise. You have provided us with a lot more info than was there before and you should be proud of your contributions. It just needs to be polished further. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I'll read through these longer pieces again over the coming days to winnow out the chaff. It's an evolving process as you know. By the way, this is what the lovely TechWiz wrote after he'd withdrawn his move to have one of my pieces deleted.

"However, many articles you've created are on people from the 18 and 1900's. That part is probably meant for people that played under 50 years ago, or who are really notable (ex. Babe Ruth). In other words: is anyone likely to search for some guy from the 1800's. And if they do, is a 3 sentence article going to help?"

Maybe he's right? Maybe we're wasting our time writing about some old guys from the 1900s and not really important cricketers like Babe Ruth? Nick mallory 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory.

Having read the above, it sounds like other people are experiencing the sort of problems I have with trolls and them wot karnt see the wudd for the treez. From what Nick says, I reckon that this TechWiz is a troll and Nick should not have got involved in a discussion with him: I bet he isn't 12 at all.
If you do create a new stub that is very short of content pending future development, you MUST quote some reliable sources like ACS, Wisden, CricketArchive and you MUST use the right categories including the stub category. See other similar articles and stubs to get guidelines. On categories, DO NOT just put it into category:cricket - find the right category in the crikcet structure. You MUST write the text in an acceptable way with appropriate headings and you MUST make clear at the outset that your subject is about a first-class cricketer, cricket tour, cricket venue, etc. If it is a person, make sure you include birth and death details immediately after his name which must begin the article. And so on. The best thing to do is find an article that is similar, copy it onto your text editor and then overwrite it. Good luck. --BlackJack | talk page 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
TechWiz said: "However, many articles you've created are on people from the 18 and 1900's. That part is probably meant for people that played under 50 years ago, or who are really notable (ex. Babe Ruth). In other words: is anyone likely to search for some guy from the 1800's. And if they do, is a 3 sentence article going to help?" You could point out to him that he is supposed to apply the guidelines as they stand, not to put his own interpretation on them. If he thinks that the guidelines are wrong, then he should try to get them changed. If people weren't interested in historical figures, then encyclopaedias would be a lot shorter. Not many people willl be interested in relatively obscure players from a hundred years ago, but if only a handful are then an article is justified. JH (talk page) 09:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blackjack. This guy wasn't a troll, he'd applied to be an administrator and he's got his own user page which clearly states his age. He was just overkeen and a little misinformed. All the articles I've written are referenced with both the right Cricinfo profile and the player's main page at Cricket Archive. They are all categorised as 'Yorkshire cricketers' and with any other county they played for as well. I always begin by saying 'so and so was a first class cricketer who played for Yorkshire county cricket club' which I wikify. Sometimes it doesn't make any difference, they still put them up for deletion! Some of the articles are short, but I want every Yorkshire player in there. It's an encyclopedia innit? Nick mallory 08:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

No, not a troll. Just very green, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nick. As a fellow Yorkie, I couldn't agree more. If I can be of any help, especially with 19th century players, drop me a line. Good luck. --BlackJack | talk page 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Ellis

He is listed as one of the cricketer's who needs an article at the top of this page. I can't find any reference to him though. Who is he? I can't find any reference to James Pamment either. Nick mallory 08:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

Ah well, they probably are real people. But they may also be a further part of the phenomenon discussed in [4]. That doesn't detract from their realness, but might affect your view of their priority. Johnlp 08:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found James Pamment, he's a yorkshire born New Zealander who played a bit for Aukland. I'll write him up. Still stumped on the other two though. The Indian one might be a writer. Nick mallory 08:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

There are two players named Andrew Ellis on Cricket Archive: [5] who currently plays for Canterbury, and has played for New Zealand Under-19s and [6] who played four first-class matches for Transvaal B in 1971 and then died on a nature reserve later the same year. I'd guess the current player is the one that the to-do list though, unless the 1971 player died in a rather grizzly manner on said nature reserve. Andrew nixon 09:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just done James Pamment. One of the Andy Ellis's died on a game reserve?!?!? See, that's a story right there. Who's the third one then? Anyone have any ideas? Nick mallory 09:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

I've done the New Zealand Andy Ellis too. Nick mallory 09:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

I'm assuming Shantha Rangaswamy is the woman who played for the Indian women's team in the 80's, so i'll write it up on that basis.Nick mallory 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

I think the mischief is still around. Unless, of course, Kirsten Pike's favourite film really is Copying Beethoven. Johnlp 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wisden confusion

Rather oddly, the article entitled Wisden Cricketer's Almanac is actually a redirect to an article about the Wisden Group, rather than redirecting to Wisden Cricketers' Almanack as one would expect. The confusion caused by this has just led to me talking completely at cross-purposes with someone. I'll fix the redirect. JH (talk page) 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Cricketer

I have created a stub article on Peggy Antonio, the "Girl Grimmett" of the 1930s. When I place the Template:Infobox Cricketer on the article. I found that the autolink to the national team went directly to the Australian men's team. Is there a way of getting that template to point to the women's team that I am missing. --Mattinbgn/ talk 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the links to men's test cricket and ODIs.--Eva bd 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The way to do it is to set "nationality" as "Australian women's". Sam Vimes | Address me 10:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I see you have fixed the Peggy Antonio article for me. Cheers --Mattinbgn/ talk 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be useful to make a template for female cricketers, though, to make links to women's Test cricket and so on. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the article on her 'spin twin' Anne Palmer. Nick mallory 09:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

You beat me to it, I had a redlink sitting there waiting for me! Good work. --Mattinbgn/ talk 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A search for Anne Palmer currently takes you to Anne Lennard, Countess of Sussex. Can someone with more expertise than me do a disambiguation? The Aussie Anne Palmer is listed under Anne Palmer (cricketer). Nick mallory 12:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teesra

Can someone check the validity of this article? It is not written very well and seems to be only be based on one source. GizzaChat © 09:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha. This article is from before the Indian tour of Pakistan in 2004 and this so called 'teesra' was a subject of numerous jokes in messageboards at the time. The special thing about this ball was that after pitching infront of the batsman (usually Sehwag) it used to land in the crowd. Saqlain scored a double century in 43 overs as a bowler in that match and hasn't played Tests since. Tintin 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame Sehwag couldn't continue sending balls into the crowd during the World Cup and in other matches recently. :) I wonder whether the article should be AFD'd, especially since I doubt anyone will try to bowl it ever again. GizzaChat © 10:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
He is too fat to be of any use now :-) Bowlers boasting about mystery deliveries is nothing new (Kaneria has talked about his at least on two seperate occasions) and IMO, there is no need for an article unless the bowler has something to show for his claim and the term comes into common use. Neither is true here. Tintin 11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Cricket_9cf1.html"