Talk:Michael Vaughan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cricket ball
Cricket Portal
Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability
Michael Vaughan is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Vaughan article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Skin condition?

I remember seeing on the television that Vaughan had very stretchy skin. Does he suffer from a skin condition? This was a long time ago and I am sure he said that he could pull the skin from his neck over his chin. Does anyone remember seeing this?


[edit] Second child born?

A recent edit says that Vaughan's second child was born last Friday. The strange thing is, I was looking for the child's name and I couldn't find a single news story about it. I don't see why anyone would make that up, but can someone confirm it? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

An (as yet unnamed) son. -- ALoan (Talk)
OK, thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics against each country

I removed the detailed statistics against each country, because it was already out of date. It was added by an anonymous editor, and hasn't been updated since it was added. It can easily be retrieved from an old version if someone does want to update it and keep it updated. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Conclusion

Any objections to me summarizing the conclusion section: it's a bit long at the moment and seems to catalogue the whole of his recovery from injury in 2006 on a week-by-week basis! --Dave. 10:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think these articles should contain minute-by-minute updates on scores/injuries etc - we have BBC sport for that. However many wikipedia sports articles are updated daily. I would certainly back a summary of the conclusion section. I don't think it needs specific dates, but the guidelines are (I think) to use eg 6 February 2007 (which then formats according to your date preferences) but not February or 2007 or 6th February etc. (WP:MOSNUM) roundhouse 11:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I understand your point about the format of dates - I'm not talking about removing the dates or re-formatting them, I'm looking at summarising the section a lot more briefly, rather than the lengthy information about when and where he returned from injury, whether he fielded or not, how many surgeries he had, and how many matches he missed. I don't object to the article being updated regularly, just noting that perhaps it's gone past the point where we need that level of detail. --Dave. 11:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I made the remark re dates in response to your recent edit (exact dates 'should' be formatted). I agree re the summary - today's news in detail is interesting today but not in 6 month's time. At some point the details should be replaced by a summary; anything pre-Ashes I would say. I'm not going to revert any recent details; it just seems to me that it is duplicating material which is better done elsewhere (and is not encyclopedic). roundhouse 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, got ya. Thanks. --Dave. 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family

Is it really necessary to include each and every detail regarding Michael's daughter's birth and the uproar that was created due to the fact that he left the field in the middle of a test match? Can the 'Family' section be summarized like the 'Conclusion' section? After all, even Michael is not too open about his private life!

Elsewhere in Wikipedia children's names are removed ... I would be in favour of a summary omitting names. roundhouse 12:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the section about Vaughan's family and removed unwanted details like skipping part of a test match to attend his daughter's birth. His family is now mentioned in only one sentence, like in other Wiki entries about Vaughan's team-mates. This summarisation was urgently required. I hope it's okay with everyone. If not, you can always revert back to the original entry.

HOPE THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED AS A CASE OF VANDALISM. - div123

[edit] Awards

In the Awards section, is it necessary to mention that Michael Vaughan became the first cricketer ever in the history of the game to feature on the cover of Cricket's bible Wisden in 2003, leading to a massive change from tradition?

Not really. Just a publisher's whim. PaddyBriggs 11:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism??

There were a couple of recent edits for this article, saying, "Michael Vaughan cannot bat to save his life", replacing the entire Early life section and "Michael Vaughan is the worst cricketer in the world" replacing the entire article. I understand that they have been edited but weren't the original edits clear-cut cases of vandalism?

Yes that's vandalism, please don't forget to sign your posts :) SGGH 08:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Michael Vaughan Cricket (MVC)

Nowhere in the article has MVC been mentioned, Vaughan's new programme to encourage youngsters to play cricket: Michael Vaughan Cricket-Summer cricket camps for children- div123

Be bold and add it yourself :) SGGH speak! 13:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocritical Vaughan??

Should the Vaughan-Flintoff 'Fredalo' saga be included? Is Vaughan really as hypocritical as everyone is making it to be?? I know it's a finished incident, but is it necessarily to be added?

It had a big thing in the media, was well covered and the whole fredalo sage is part of a noted criticism of Flintoff himself, so such a related sub-topic should be included yes. SGGH speak! 16:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh descent??

Does Michael Vaughan have any sort of family connections in Wales?? The surname 'Vaughan' is very much Welsh in origin, and it means 'small, little' and it is a variant of the orginal surname 'Vaughn'. So can anydody else shed some light regarding this? I mean, his surname is Welsh, but is he really of Welsh descent? Or is he a pure-blooded Englishman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.158.61 (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Calling The Shots By Michael Vaughan.jpg

Image:Calling The Shots By Michael Vaughan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Calling The Shots By Michael Vaughan.jpg

Image:Calling The Shots By Michael Vaughan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)