User talk:Juwe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello Juwe, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on Talk page. Again, welcome! You 00:23, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date wikilinks

Hi. Thanks for all your efforts on the 1988 Windies article. I wonder if you'd mind unlinking all the partial dates in your templates? The reader gains no knowledge from (say) the June 2 article, so convention is to wikilink only full dates in FAs. Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Will do now. Juwe (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] THANK YOU!!!

Thank you very much Juwe!!!
Thanks for your message and suggestions. I'll attempt to take it into consideration and modify the pages accordingly in future.
I really appreciate the time you have taken to assist me.
Thanking you,
Yours Sincerely,
Amit Munje (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I appreciate the work you have done in updating the IPL pages, including the score summaries, so efficiently.
Juwe (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Hi, I was going through your edits and felt that you could do with the rollback privilege. If you want that, let me know. I will enable that on your account. --soum talk 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Soum, that would be good. Juwe (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Done. Btw, just wanted to tell you that you are doing an awesome job with the IPL-related articles. Keep it up. :) --soum talk 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. You're doing a great job too. If the groundwork is done for this IPL, then it should be much easier to deal with future editions. Juwe (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mass Changes

I saw you undertook a mass change of DareDevils to Daredevils. If you plan on any such mass edit in the future, you might wanna consider using AWB. Let me know if you need approval. --soum talk 07:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Approval for AWB would be good. I don't have any immediate plans for mass editing, but it might be useful in the future. Thanks for your help in these matters. Juwe (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Its best not to keep any more privileges enabled on your accounnt than you are going to use. Let me know whenever you want to use it. --soum talk 13:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks anyway. Juwe (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CRIC#SCOPE

Hello, Juwe.

I'm making improvements to the project main page and to the review processes. As you pointed out, the project scope doesn't say anything about templates and I'd like to add something. If you have any wordings in mind, could you please let me know? Thanks again. --BlackJack | talk page 05:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi BlackJack,
I have responded to the post on your talk page.
Cheers, --Juwe (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Juwe. I had a look at this, which you mentioned on my talk page:
Cricket-related templates
The pages listed in this category are meant to be navbox (navigational) templates.
If subcategories exist for other template types (e.g. infoboxes), they should be named as such and appear at the start of the subcategories listing immediately below this messagebox.

...and I think it had been put in Category:Cricket templates by mistake as it should have been in the navbox category. I've moved it there. There is a similar box on the infobox category page.

I think for the most part that it is a case of ensuring that every template is in the right category but also ensuring that articles don't get into the template categories. I've just removed half a dozen articles that had template text embedded in the article rather than a template call (as a result the noinclude doesn't work). I'll keep an eye on th etemplates as I go through things and make corrections accordingly. We do need to make sure that unused or useless templates go into the junk folder.

It looks as if there are just the four distinct template types: navbox, infobox, the CR category and these Australian colour codes. If we can structure everything that is there by using these four categories I think we will be okay. It's possible that another category type or two might need to be created but I don't think the problem is half so bad as it first seemed.

Best wishes. BlackJack | talk page 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The 4 categories that you have suggested sound like a good start. However, I think that there probably are more than 4 different types of template around at the moment. I suppose it depends on the definitions you use, but I would say that this template: Template:Test match, while it might be classified as an "infobox", is really a different type of template altogether. Maybe it would fit into a category called (for example) "Match result templates". Regarding the Australian colour codes, this category might be OK to start with, but hopefully it will become a subcategory of "Team colour codes" in the future. I agree with having a "Junk templates" category, but I also think it would be good to have a "Miscellaneous templates" category for templates that, as yet, haven't been categorised (and future templates not yet conceived of).
Regards, Juwe (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ashes / Non-Ashes

Juwe, the best thing to do is to create an inverted Ashes version of your non-Ashes template and use that in Ashes series articles with the non-Ashes template in non-Ashes series articles. That way, every article will contain a link to every series and the emphasis on series type will be appropriate. Regards. --BlackJack | talk page 07:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I will do that when I have a spare moment in the near future. Juwe (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] IPL Strike Rate/Economy Table Filters

Hi, I am the person who initially put these tables on that page (and had thought of those unnecessarily convoluted filters). I do agree that for bowling the filter proposed by you is better just because it is much simpler, and achieves the same thing that was intended in the first place (i.e. someone shouldn't be high on this list at the end of the tournament just by having 1 or 2 good performances). 20 overs cutoff ensures that the bowler has bowled in at least 5 matches, which seems a big enough sample to decide whether he REALLY was economical overall and not just on one bad pitch/against one bad opposition.

This, however, is not true for the batting filter if we just say that everyone over 150 runs qualifies. A single great performance (by McCullum, Symonds, Hussey etc) which might've been the result of a really good batting pitch and/or a weak bowling attack ensures that you will be high on this list even at the end of the tournament. That does not seem ideal to me.

So, in my opinion, either 150 runs is just too small a limit for this table and should be raised to maybe 200. But, probably more appropriately, we could make it something like at least 7 innings (considering that 14 matches is the minimum that every team gets to play) or maybe a combination of both (at least 5 innings and at least 150 runs, perhaps?).

Perhaps I have this stupid knack of coming up with convoluted filters when a simpler one will do the trick. If you can think of something better that will take care of this problem then please let me know about it. The problem I am speaking of is this couple-of-good-days-and-you're-top-of-the-heap nature of the 150 runs filter.

Thanks Rtyags (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rtyags.
I suppose the fundamental problem with those 2 tables is that they require filters at all, unlike the "most runs" and "most wickets" tables, and that it is potentially better for a player to have played fewer matches. For the "batting strike rate" table, when I changed the old filter to the new one, I was essentially trying to avoid the situation of having the table consist of the fastest scoring 5 batman out of the 9 or 10 highest scoring batsmen (as well as simplifying the filter to the reader).
Your point about single performances being responsible for most of the 150 runs is a good one, although I don't like the idea of the qualification being just "at least 7 innings" as this could lead to some tailender having scored (something like) 50 runs off 22 balls over 7 innings and being at the head of the table. Maybe your idea of a combination of runs and innings is the way to go. I think "7 innings and 150 runs" might be appropriate, as "5 innings" could still easily lead to McCullum-type situations (he had 4 innings). At the moment, this combination has 26 eligible batsmen, which I think is a large enough pool, especially given that this will probably rise somewhat by the tournament end.
Finally, I don't think your filters were bad to start with. There were 2 things that made them more appropriate earlier on in the tournament:
  • Much less than the full quota of matches had been played and so it would be ridiculous to have a filter that said "at least 7 innings" when each team had only played 5 matches, or "at least 150 runs" if only 3 batsmen had yet surpassed this number of runs.
  • We didn't know what sort of runs totals batsmen would end up with for the tournament. I think that at the start of the tournament, I expected far more batsmen to have passed 200 runs and 300 runs by now.
So in summing up, I think that "7 innings played and 150 runs scored" is a good solution. What do you think? Juwe (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Yes, I think 7 innings and 150 runs seems a good enough filter that should give desirable results even at the end of the season. And as you mentioned, we might go with a modified version of my original filters for the initial part of every season. Rtyags (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Juwe (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have posted this conversation on Talk:2008 Indian Premier League#Best Economy Rate (and Bating Strike Rate) Juwe (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 IPL#League progression

Are the semi-finals/final listings really necessary for the League progression table? Neither will the matches award the playing teams any points nor will all the teams play in those matches. Any information that it can possibly convey will only be redundant to 2008 IPL#Knockout stage. --soum talk 08:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was relevant because it gives a colour-coded form guide for the entire season, otherwise the table stops right before the 3 most important matches. It is true that there will be no points, but I thought we could just put "W" and "L" there instead (and I suppose alter the 1st note to say "group match" rather than "match"). I don't think that there will be an issue with just leaving some boxes white (or grey or whatever) given that the finals section is clearly demarcated. Also, given that the competition is called the "Indian Premier League", I thought that we should label the 2 stages as "Group stage" and "Knockout stage" (or "Finals") and use "League" to refer to the entire competition (similar to the UEFA Champions League). Finally, I don't think there is anything wrong with presenting information twice in 2 different ways (as 2008 IPL#Knockout stage and 2008 IPL#League progression would), as long as it doesn't detract from the article as a whole in some way (eg by weighing it down in unnecessary detail). I personally don't think it does that as I don't think a reader would get any more bogged doen in the expanded table than the old one, but maybe you disagree?
Juwe (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't judging right or wrong. Just whether it was really necessary. --soum talk 11:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure - and anyway, it is fine for you to say something looks bad if that is what you think. I won't take offence and am willing to change my opinion if a good argument is presented. I wasn't trying to be defensive either, just explaining why I made the change in the first place. Juwe (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB Approval

Y Done --soum talk 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Juwe (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Want to join?

Hello Juwe! I noticed that you contribute to cricket related articles. We are a "WikiProject" aiming to expand, improve and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. We would like to invite you to join us. If you would like to help but don't know what to do, please see our project page or inquire on our talk page. You may sign up for the project on our members list. Happy editing!

Best wishes. BlackJack | talk page 19:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Juwe (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting comments

Could you please comment on Talk:2009 Indian Premier League#You Sure, Talk:Indian Premier League#The trophy and Talk:2008 Indian Premier League#Aiming for an FA (soliciting opinion on how to proceed)? --soum talk 07:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Juwe (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 IPL

It seems like the issue has been resolved. Do you still need me to intervene? --soum talk 07:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this issue I don't think so. However, it was very annoying (and wasted much time) when LeaveSleaves just tried to avoid the arguments I put forward and stuck to his position no matter what. I think he needs someone to have a word to him about actually reading, taking note of and debating the arguments put forward in discussions, and using a bit of common sense rather than scrambling for technicalities and rushing into AfD nominations. He might take it as an insult if someone tries to correct him, which he shouldn't. We all make mistakes and bad edits, and if they are pointed out we should just accept them and move on. This is not the first time I have had a problem with LeaveSleaves either, and I posted about the issue on WT:CRIC#Article for Deletion: 2009 Indian Premier League (with a link about the previous disagreement). If you put him on notice in some way (I'm not sure how exactly) that he should be cease employing unconstructive debating techniques, that would hopefully have some positive impact. Thanks Juwe (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Juwe. Calm down, man! You will come along a lot of headstrong editors in the course of editing in Wikipedia. And that can be a very frustrating experience - so frustrating at times that it will make you not want to return to active editing ever again - but thats an occupational hazard that comes with being an Wikipedia editor, and almost everyone here has had to face it at some point or the other. Mediation is not going to be of much help here. Mediation can only help with resolving individual disputes, not make an editor change his editing habits. Particularly when he isn't uncivil or rude or disrespectful to other editors in the course of the discussion. Let's assume that he is warned but still continues, what then? There isn't a technical reason to block him from editing. So if he requests an unblock (which is handled by an admin other than the blocking admin), he is almost sure to overturn the block. The only thing that will work here is a community ban, which is a consensus reached by admins to disallow certain actions of certain editors. The first step to that is a call for an RFC. You could initiate an RFC against him. But I would not suggest you do it right now. There has been just two instances you say, and the community will be more inclined to wait and watch for the time being. Instead, I suggest you politely write him a note you (as a co-editor) find an impediment to the goal of collaborative editing, and request if he could keep that in mind for subsequent discussions. I will keep an eye on how it foes and jump in as necessary. --soum talk 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit of a tricky problem, considering that he appears to genuinely believe he has done nothing wrong and does make various constructive edits to wikipedia. I also admit that he tries to remain civil in discourse, even if refusing to address the issues raised by another party is in fact uncivil. I don't even seek to have him blocked, I just want him to know he can't get away with grossly wasting other people's time with unacceptable conduct in discussions etc. I have actually already left a post (as yet unreplied to) on the talk page of an admin who appears to commonly deal with dispute resolution (see here User talk:PhilKnight#Recurring problems with an unconstructive editor). I am not too convinced about writing him any notes either, as he failed to engage with me constructively at the best of times and was especially recalcitrant when I made any negative remarks about his conduct. Maybe, like you suggest, I have jumped the gun a bit, but I can just see many more wasted hours occurring if someone, other than myself, doesn't put him on notice. Juwe (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
From the "For What It's Worth Department"...all box scores for American Major League Baseball list the home team second, as do ALL the other professional and semi-professional teams. I'm not sure what the historic connection is between the two (Cricket/Baseball) but I know there is one. The Home team may also be bold or in italics or with an H but even then, the Home team is always shown under the Visiting team. It's the standard way.--Buster7 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buster7 (talk • contribs)
Hi Buster7,
I appreciate your information about baseball scores, and I realise that to non-cricket-fans the listing of the batting order might not seem that important. However, cricket differs from baseball in some important ways. I will just give you a brief and simplistic explanation of what I mean. In a cricket match, teams will bat for either one innings each (in cricket innings is singular as well as plural) or two innings each, contrasting with baseball's 9 innings per side matches. Batting innings are generally very long as well, as it is difficult to get batsmen out and an innings finishes only when the entire team of 11 has batted (and 10 of them have got out). A typical innings might see 250-300 runs scored. Thus, for a one innings per side match, you have a team that spends the first half of the match "setting a target", and the second half "defending the target" while the other team tries to "chase it down". The tactics batting first and batting second vary greatly, and the tactics of the chasing side will vary depending on the size of the target. One factor that exists in cricket, but not baseball, is that there is often a limit to the number of balls ("balls being bowled" is equivalent to "pitches being pitched") a batting team can face. Thus, teams will want to score as quickly as possible, but also ensure that they don't lose all their wickets (ie, use up all their 10 outs) too quickly. What "fast scoring" and "losing wickets too quickly" mean depends entirely on the context of the match, and in particular on the team batting order. I imagine that in baseball, due to the relative low-scoring, the fact that a significant scoring play may occur at any time (eg a 3-run homer), and that there are many innings per side, the batting order is considerably less important to match tactics. In addition, when balls are bowled, they will land on the playing surface in front of the batsman before reaching him, and the characteristics of this surface affect how easy the ball is to play. During a match, the characteristics of this surface will change in various ways, generally, but not always, making batting more difficult later on.
These are some of the reasons why it is important to list teams by batting order in a match. It is also the standard way of presenting cricket scores, not just on wikipedia, but generally too. This is why I initially changed the score summaries of the particular wikipedia page to display teams in order of batting order. I was not even aware of the wikipedia consensus at the time, but it seemed like the logical thing to do. Only afterwards did I discover that there was a strong wikipedia consensus on the issue, and it supported my format. I included the "(H)" symbol to preserve the home team information, which would otherwise have been lost by my edits. The "(H)" would not be appropriate in all circumstances though, as, for most series between international teams, matches will only occur in one coutry, and so adding an "(H)" would just look silly and unnecessary.
Juwe (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)