Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Another template

A relatively new user has added a new template for the "ESPN Best Test XI" to various prominent cricketers, such as Donald Bradman, Imran Khan, Sachin Tendulkar and Ian Botham. My inclination is to remove them, but then I'm fairly anti-template anyway (preferring to use links and cross-references within text where possible). And I don't want to discourage a new author. So what do others think? Johnlp 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a pretty low-calibre award in the scheme of things. Given that it's a newbite, I'd suggest a polite referral to a debate here, rather than anything to upset and deter someone who clearly has much to offer the project. Nice one, Johnlp, bringing it to our attention. Even nicer that you didn't bite (of course... you're a gent). --Dweller 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Definitely remove the template. I'm not even sure it's worth a category, personally. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call ESPN an authority on cricket and we don't have these templates for Richie Benaud's Greatest XI. On balance, I think it should go. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I put a note on the new user's talk page inviting him/her to contribute thoughts here. Let's see if there's a response within, say, 24 hours before removing (if that's the consensus). Johnlp 20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey all - i am the 'new user' in discussion. I would gladly see the Test XI go but it needs to be replaced with something better - for eg. Richie Benaud's XI. The reason for this is that most sports have their All-Pro teams displayed prominantly in the sportsman's wiki page and i would like to see the best players of cricket (as recognized by their peers/media/jury) to have a link in their wiki page. Any thoughts? Kalyan 13:40 26 February 2007 (IST)

The only thing with real kudos doesn't really apply brilliantly, as it's not a full team (only 5 were designated) and it's not an all-time list, but just the 20th century. That'd be the Wisden Cricketers of the Century. The problem with cricket is that it's so old that comparisons of players from different eras become like comparisons of players of different sports, e.g. comparing Fred Spofforth with modern over-arm bowlers is impossible and actually ridiculous. I'd say we probably don't need to emulate the other sports with this. We're already submerging in templates and we should stick to the most useful. For example, I'd argue for removing 2003 World Cup templates, now that people are far more likely only to be interested in 2007 for the next couple of years. --Dweller 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Spofforth bowled overarm, too. Robertson-Glasgow 16:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes rewards and recognition that can be recognized in the cricketer pages? Taking a reference, in American Football - you have pro-bowl selections, MVP of the Year selection, All-Decade selection. I know that cricket has always lacked the same and i would like a similar mechanism to be used to recognize as a credible award/reward methodology for players. --Kalyan 1820, 26 February 2007 (IST)

Well, as you say, cricket lacks a similar mechanism. I don't think that just because it doesn't various all-time selections (of which there are a few, none of which are particularly well known) should be elevated into that position for the sake of it. HornetMike 13:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There's the Wisden Cricketer of the Year, but it's largely restricted to players who have appeared in England. There is already a category for that. Also John Woodcock a few years back produced his own list of who he regarded as the 100 greatest players of all time. JH (talk page) 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone initiate the deletion or can i do the same? --Kalyan 2100, 26 February 2007 (IST)

You can do it yourself. Tag it with {{db-self}} (write {{db-self}} on top of the page) Sam Vimes | Address me 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Times of India

They plagiarised dozens of wiki cricket bios, complete with all the POV and OR violations. I'm amused that my newbie OR violations trumpeting Irfan Pathan as a future captain of the Indian cricket team have possibly reached the tables of millions of Indians. Fellow members of WP:CRIC, launch your careers as cricket commentators today, by putting OR violations and personal commentary into cricket biographies! (LOL)! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link? — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 08:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
See his userpage. Tintin 08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Very amusing! There might a time when Cricinfo starts plagiarising! GizzaChat © 09:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Cricinfo are already using our articles as sources for some of their profiles and stories, with proper references. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 12:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Um. That is going to get awfully incestuous, if we are not careful. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I read a fascinating story about the A-Z company that invented the idea of street maps. Apparently, they regularly insert little inventions into their maps, minor enough not to mislead anyone using them, significant enough to catch out people trying to steal their work. Not that I'm suggesting we follow suit! --Dweller 16:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I know them as copyright traps. A wikipedia search for that redirects us to Fictitious entry. More examples there. Andrew nixon 20:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket portal header

I noticed the portal advertised in the top line of Googly. Is this something we think should be done on cricket articles? --Dweller 14:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember having a discussion about this some time ago. I think it should only be on the most important (or best?) articles, and then only in the "See also" section. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of portals have a little box to link to them, I think these look quite good. For an example, see the top-right of television. They're better down the bottom of the article though ,imho. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This plug looks uncomfortably like a disambig, to me. --Dweller 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Even using the little icons, they should be in the See Also section. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Would going through cricket articles and adding these tags be something that User:CricketBot could do? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but no. I don't much like them at all, and I certainly think it's a bad idea to have them on most cricket articles. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree absolutely with Stephen. And, at the risk of sounding even grumpier than usual, I wonder whether the forest of signs and notices at the top of this page isn't getting a bit much. What with the template infestations as well... Perhaps one day we'll just go back to trying to create an encyclopedia instead of a billboard jungle. Sigh. Johnlp 23:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well put! Although I don't mind them as much on talk pages. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages article creator, stubs, and lists

I have been looking through the women's cricketer categories and found a bunch of stubby articles created on talk pages - Juliana Nero, Nicola Browne, Sara McGlashan, Suzie Bates, Clea Hoyte, Margaret Peden. It is rather annoying that this is still going on.

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/List of cricketers, I also found I had to undelete and expand Manoj Cheruparambil, deleted speedily as an A1 recently. Does this happen often? The list at User:CricketBot/stubs remains rather long (lots of Test players). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's the vegan vandal at work again. I thought he'd gone away... Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been checking the IP's contributions and found a few more (cricketers, actors, All Blacks), including several earlier today. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Creating this much work for other editors is really anti-social. Is there a list of his IPs? Here are a few that seem to be relevant, from the edit history of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/to do:

Grr. - ALoan (Talk) 11:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And some more:

Sigh. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Season) in International cricket articles

I notice the 2006-07 one has an under-19 series in it. Should it be there? And, if so, should series like England A's series against Bangladesh A be added as well? HornetMike 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

When I started that series of articles, I included Test matches, ODI matches, U-19 matches, A tours, WCL qualifying matches and women's matches. It quickly got a bit out of hand to manage though. Remind me to clean up that 2006-07 one... Sam Vimes | Address me 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Averages in series articles

I proposed this on the talk page for the 2006-07 Ashes, but got no response. I reckon a well-designed averages table (like one find in the list of test players articles) would be able to give the reader an overview of what each player did in a series, without having to list full scorecards (which is what people started to do in that article). Thoughts? HornetMike 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea. --Dweller 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a couple in Pakistani cricket team in West Indies in 2005 and Bangladeshi cricket team in England in 2005, if you want inspiration. It's encyclopedic (IMO, but I'm not the best judge of such matters ;) ) but quite tiresome to compile! Sam Vimes | Address me 16:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I've always thought tour averages were a bit silly, especially for a two- or three-match series. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unofficial Twenty20 World Championship

Just thought WikiProject Cricket would be interested in the prod: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unofficial Twenty20 World Championship. - Ozzykhan 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Collingwood

Colly has now made it to featured article status, thanks to all involved! The Rambling Man 09:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done to all, but particularly to you. Great stuff. Johnlp 10:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, back-slaps all round! Good stuff. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well done - it's much better than it was when I started looking at it. I've added a section to his talk page about his time in Australia (down the bottom) and I'm going to add some of that into the article, if people think that's fair? -Gavinio 12:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket

The article quality has deteriorated to a point that it violates quite a few areas of WP:MoS. I prefer to revert to an earlier version (the content on the game that is) so that it is polished up for the world cup.

I need help in the following areas: 1) ==History of cricket==. I know many have access to books on cricket, so I request those who do to please summarise the same and mark it up with appropriate citations. 2) ==Forms of cricket== help needed there too with appropriate citations. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For (1), why not plagiarise, and also give links to, what is already available on Wikipedia in the various "History of Cricket" articles? There are:
and other articles under Category:Cricket history stubs, including histories for the main overseas countries. As you'll see, it's a bit disorganised, with redundancy in some areas and gaps in others, but there is much useful information there. JH (talk page) 16:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
That has content, but no citations. :-( =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What areas exactly are you talking out that violates the WP:MoS? Also wisden yearly reviews may help. Well any major event that happened is likely to be there, so this is the easiest place to look for reference. Are we going to cite the laws too?--Thugchildz 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The ToC is one. Empty sections is another Links in the middle of text is the third. Poor layouting of images is the fourth. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with the ToC? and what do you mean empty sections; like sections with just subsections?(there's a lot of articles that do that). And when you saying links in the middle of the text are you talking about the history section? the pictures layouting isn't a issue, for me at least.--Thugchildz 06:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article drive template

Had a look through the articles. Andrew Symonds is listed, but has no photo. Is this right? KingStrato 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it up so it actually shows. I wonder whether the quality is passable though? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Without trying to dampen morale, it looks as though to get as many FAs ready for selection in time, we should probably target articles about inexperienced players, otherwise we will take too long to write some very large articles : Harbhajan Singh (80kb: 57 Tests and 147 ODIs), Paul Collingwood (58kb: 20 Tests and 112 ODIs), Adam Gilchrist (68kb: 90 Tests and 290 ODIs, but IMHO many parts of his career are not covered). I guess that leaves Liam Plunkett - (6 Tests, 22 ODIs), Monty Panesar - (13 Tests, 9 ODIs), Sajid Mahmood - (8 Tests, 19 ODIs) and Kevin Pietersen (23 Tests, 42 ODIs) as the most "likely", as well as including Duncan Fletcher and Bob Woolmer. I guess Ravinder Bopara would be the easisest but I doubt he would get a game. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How about someone from a minnow team. It would be a great way to promote cricket when for example, Canadian Wikipedians see one of their cricket players has become an FA. The problem is that a fair amount of updating will have to be done during the tournament for those who haven't played too much because the amount of matches they play in the WC will be of a greater proportion than experience ODI players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaGizza (talk • contribs) 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

I think it will be a great idea to try and get minnow team cricketers up the FA how about someone like steve tikilo or john davison and other notable associate cricketers. And about the articles changing a lot, well not really because this time around they all had odi status and took part in the world cricket league and other odi series plus they only have three odi's in the 1st round and 12 in all if they go to the final; all associate teams here played more odis than that. Also finding pictures may be a problem but there may be free pictures in some of the sites like flickr.--Thugchildz 06:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No free pics. That's the problem. If they are in flickr, obviously, I don't recognise them! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, its hard to find and you have to look around a lot but if you guys do put decide to put in effort into a "big" minnow team cricketer than I'll put in the time to find a free pic of them or at least ask the owner to the pic to change the license to make it free.--Thugchildz 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you have a chat to anybody to free up pics for Irfan Pathan and Dinesh Karthik. Those articles should be ready (apart from the lack of the non-cricket interests). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'll try but don't you think karthik's article's too short? Also could you guys try to get John Davison's article up to FA? It won't be that hard to find his pics as it would be for other associates because he's been playing in Australia but his canadian so that will get their interest; I would help but not really good at writing in bios.--Thugchildz 07:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to work on articles for players who might just be newsworthy during the tournament. It's romantic to take on a player from a lesser nation, but why would the main page want to feature them anyway. If anyone wants to help out with dealing with the current objections to Adam Gilchrist being Featured, please see the numbered list on his article's talk page. --Dweller 13:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

how do you know a minnow star isn't going to make any news during the tournament? There's been upsets in the wc by the minnows a few times in the past. Ryan ten Doeschate has a picture too, so can we put effort on him next? Or what about Mashrafe Mortaza, there's a sure chance BD could cause another upset next in the group stages and he's their best bowler...I really think we should do at least one minnow player, I can search/find the free pictures for 'em--Thugchildz 01:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Nobody told me we had a pic of Ryan ten Doeschate! We can start on that now urgently, since Netherland's last group match is on March 22 and they are very likely to be knocked out before then. You should have simply added him to the template! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If we're after a player with a reasonably short history, yet likely to play, how about Ian Bell? He was on the list, but the photo was not considered good enough. I have 38 cds of photos, and there's a very good one of him on there that I took a couple of years ago. It'll take me a little while to dig it out. Is it worth looking, given the article? KingStrato 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've got another zoomed in photo. At the size it is on the infobox, themugshot scrapes in. But more players, yeah. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Gilchrist

... has now been nominated for featured article status here so all comments from all quarters are not only encouraged but welcomed and required in order to get this chap elevated before CWC'07 starts... Thanks to all who made it possible (at fear of sounding like an Oscar winner!) The Rambling Man 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also peer review for West Indies Cricket team and Collingwood main page request--Thugchildz 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harbhajan Singh

... has now been nominated for featured article status here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs) 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Flickr pics

Is anybody confident in how to negotiate changes of picture licenses and how to get in contact with flickr contributors? If so, Ageo020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has uploaded a picture of Harbhajan (which isn't actually free), I was wondering if anybody has the ability or desire to work out a deal with the author to see if we can use it (The same author also has good pictures of Irfan Pathan, which would enable another FA - Pathan is already GA with full chronology, as well as perhaps some others if we are quick enough). Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that photo is a simple copyvio and I've listed it for speedy deletion. It can be re-uploaded if we get permission, but I don't think most Flickr authors are willing to put a "sufficiently free" (meaning, not even non-commercial use only) licence on their photos. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chappell Ganguly affair

Started this article. I was looking for feedback into the best name for the article. hopefully I can make this FA too. It would be a lot shorter than on Sourav Ganguly himself and more accessible for the {{CWC Advert}} campaign, as it is relevant to the current WC. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Unverified cricket images

Can some admin find out why Category:Unverified cricket images has suddenly disappeared? Was this a policy decision, or was it just deleted because it happened to be empty at the moment? If the latter, can someone please bring it back. I use this category a lot. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The deletion summary says it was deleted "per User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted". I've no idea what the actual reason was. Try asking either User:Betacommand or User:Voice of All (who deleted it) or just recreate it yourself and see what happens - the images still seem to be there. --Cherry blossom tree 11:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea either. I left a question at VOA's talk. —Moondyne 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Judging by his talk page, he seems to have made a lot of people unhappy by deleting categories recently. Could some admin just restore it? I know I could recreate it, but it would be better to bring it back in its previous state. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

By your command. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cwc in the news

How does it work? can we get every result of the wc in the news of the main page? well i dont know how it works so... Or is like get just big things like the cwc starts today in windies and ___ won the cwc? just wondering--Thugchildz 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, for WP:TFA, I expect that Raul654 will not want to schedule several cricket-related FAs for the Main Page during the competition - perhaps just Cricket World Cup at the start, and a cricketer bio towards the end (it may be worth requesting Paul Collingwood], Adam Gilchrist or Harbhajan Singh for the day of the final, if one of them is playing in it. Most likely is Gilchrist, I suppose, although recent form makes it difficult to guess. We will not have much notice, so may need to make a special plea to Raul654 directly.)
Understandably, there is strong resistence to WP:ITN containing continuous updates for the results of on-going sporting competitions - there are so many sporting competitions that it would be ludicrous to include them all, and impossible to decide which ones to include and which ones to leave out if we were more selective. IIRC, the 2004 Summer Olympics was a bit of an exception, which is unlikely to be repeated (it was not for the 2006 Winter Olympics); for the 2006 football world cup, there was a note in ITN when the competition started, and then a permanent note that the competition continued, with a link to the results page - the results were not added to the Main Page as the competition progressed. For the cricket world cup, I expect we will get a link when it starts, and one for the winner when it ends.
It may be possible to generate some Main Page coverage through expanding the more stubby articles for cricketers who are playing in the competition, and then nominating them with a World Cup-related hook at WP:DYK. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Gilchrist FA nom

Right, I've worked my socks off on this one now, I firmly believe I hold the WP record for citations, just the 192 citewebs, not to mention some brilliant (!) prose and hopefully good coverage of his career. Please, please allow me to implore you to support or otherwise the article's elevation to featured article status, and as always, if it's anything other than a support, tell me how I can change your mind! The Rambling Man 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of United States cricket

I know that the big push of the project right now is the WC, but I'm hoping to start work on the History of United States cricket soon. This article is not very good right now and with my side out of international cricket indefinitely, I can only live in the past. Any help anyone can offer would be appreciated. This is just the next in line after Bart King, John Lester, George Patterson, and the Philadelphian cricket team. Thanks a lot.--Eva bd 03:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Johnston

A storm in a teacup seems to be brewing about the Holding/Willey quote. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 31 year old memories of a radio broadcast are certainly interesting when compared to documented evidence! MDCollins (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monty Panesar

An IP editor has tagged this as POV and sees weasel words in one section. I think it's not as bad as it was, say, six months ago, and can see only a couple of places where it veers off into being slightly too fond of its subject. But perhaps someone who hasn't had any input into its creation could take a look with fresh eyes. Johnlp 18:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1877-78 Australian cricket season

A user has prod-ed this article. Since the user who created the article has retired from WP, I figured this would be the best place to see that the article gets needed attention.

Most of the other Australian cricket season articles are just as lacking in content, so they might get prod-ed, too. *Mishatx*-In\Out 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the many articles in this series are effectively empty too. I appreciate a lot of work has gone into the template - but if nothing is there ... :-( There was a similar issue at New Zealand and I notice a substantial contribution was made in response to the prod [1] --Golden Wattle talk 05:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article should be deleted. Creating dozens of empty articles and planning to fill them up later is not the way we do things. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It wouldn't have been that hard to put some decent content in the articles. I'd much rather have red-links than empty articles in a way. A red-link encourages someone to create an article, whilst an almost empty article encourages them to have it deleted. Andrew nixon 10:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the response to date I have started to prod other articles in the series too. I have put the article outline at Template talk:Australian cricket seasons--Golden Wattle talk 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • A user has removed the prod tag with "declining prod for now, many of the older seasons contain little more than this, leave them for now as placeholders". I will put the entire seireis to AfD when I get a chance.--Golden Wattle talk 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not empty any longer so shouldn't be a candidate for AFD. However, understand your concern over the other pages. But a deletionist approach is a shame here, especially as the Wikiproject will inevitably fill in these articles. We're making a lot of work for each other... The Rambling Man 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not normally a deletionist but I believe a redlink is better than a place holder blue link. If there is a blue link people do not realise there is no information. To say that effectively people played cricket in Australia in any given summer since 1950 is not information! These stubs say nothing more than that. The references they link to say nothing more than that - there is no clue of the games are notable or merely games. I question also whether every season is notable but am prepared to be convinced otherwise on that point if there is content.--Golden Wattle talk 20:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I could argue that they could even be speedied under criterion A3 ("Any article consisting only of [...] a rephrasing of the title"). Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree but I don't like to use speedy if respected contributors created the article in good faith. Two people have objected to the prod. I would like to have some discussion here before taking it to AfD. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise but I feel the content now added to that season is in fact just a rehash of the reference - we now have three games were played in the summer of 1877-78 - no other information about the games. I appreciate wikipedia is a work in progress but none of these hundred or so articles say anything. Even the seasons that are notable, for example 1931-32 are empty. Why create placeholders, why not wait until somebody wants to write something? The original editor may have had something in mind but he has left wikipedia.--Golden Wattle talk 21:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it would be rude to speedy them as they were created in good faith. But I would vote to delete them at AfD. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added a little to 1977-78 Australian cricket season , 1876-77 Australian cricket season , 1980-81 Australian cricket season , 1932-33 Australian cricket season so as to explain their notability. I am sure there are others that are instantly and recognisably notable with articles already existing that we can link to. I propose to let editors have a chance to comment, add to articles, ... and then nominate for AfD any that are still effectively empty stubs saying no more than that the season occurred. The template will be at the talk page of the navigation template to assist in reconstructing an article.--Golden Wattle talk 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • May I take a moment to acknowledge the fact we're discussing this and giving others a chance to make effects rather than just wave goodbye to some serious work done in good faith. I completely appreciate what both Stephen Turner and Golden Wattle are saying, but I do believe it's something WP-wide that we need to discover if a 19xx-19x+1 season of anything is notable enough for an article. If not we'll end up in a few years with a half-hearted version of the history of cricket. The Rambling Man 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I suspect that we can justify an article on most cricket seasons in most major cricket-playing countries for years when there was a real competition in place: domestic or international. Similarly for tours. The difficulty arises when, as in the 1877-78 Australian cricket season, there was very little domestic competition and no international interest, and is even more problematic for earlier years when there is very little record of anything much "official" happening. I have a high regard for what our former colleague did, but, having done a bit of "back-filling" in places, I find it a bit irritating that the format is prescriptive (down to references that I don't have access to) while the content is so lacking. So I reluctantly agree with Stephen and Golden Wattle and won't defend them against deletion where there truly is minimal content. If they are important seasons, they will be re-created: if not, not. Johnlp 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As mentioned above, I'll not defend these articles against deletion now that our erstwhile friend who created them has left and now that their fulfilment in the way he intended is not likely to happen. So I've added my support. May I add that I'm much impressed by the courteous way User:Golden Wattle and User:Mishatx have gone about this: thank you both. Johnlp 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RM : Bill O'Reilly

Here we go again: Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator)#Requested move redux =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear - it's the first time I've seen this debate. What a mess. Why can the compromise solution (the disambig page) be left alone? I dare say all of us here could push really hard for Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) to be moved, but we don't, and why should we? I would support a strong push to close this argument with a disambig page as quickly as possible. MDCollins (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated O'Reilly for this WikiProject's Collaboration of the Month. If he has a featured article, it'd help when the argument comes around again (in about a week and a half, no doubt) --Dweller 15:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google today

Dunno about where you live, but Google.co.uk search page has a lovely cricket image today. --Dweller 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too @ google.co.in =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does it look more like a baseball shot than a cricket shot? Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Dunno about the shot (in front of square pull, a la Alec Stewart?) but why's he wearing half a tomato on his head? Also, his ribs would look interesting on an X-ray. --Dweller 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Alas, tn the US, we've got nothing. --Eva bd 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banging the same old drum

Not wishing to be too boring but can I beg some of your time to hopefully make the final push on Adam Gilchrist to be elevated to FA? Some of you have added comments, which hopefully have been addressed, some of you haven't added on opinion at all - we're so close... The Rambling Man 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main page

Hope you've all seen the main page today. The Featured Article is about some strange sport, a bit like baseball that no-one plays or watches. Poop. --Dweller 09:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations to all involved. JH (talk page) 09:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article bot

User:AlexNewArtBot looks interesting — it categorises new articles by subject. I've put a note at the owner's talk page asking if it can detect cricket articles.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Ashes series, 2006-07 Ashes series, The Ashes

I know we will be busy with the World Cup in the next few weeks, but these articles are pretty good, and the former had a FAC in December 2005.

Is anyone thinking of taking either of them to FAC to join The Ashes? (And The Ashes currently has some expansion tags for the earlier series, incidentally.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

2005 is currently stuck - half of it is pretty good, the remainder is a bit POV and lacks references. It's on my long list of things to do. Will get around to it. (Would be good to get help from someone with Wisden 2006, too.)
Not sure on 2006-07, could be there I guess. Sam Vimes | Address me 15:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harbhajan Singh

Is now a featured article - excellent work from all those involved, nice one! It's also one of the shortest FAC pages I've seen, so you must have done something right. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

?? It's 79kb long! GizzaChat © 10:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry, my bad. I didn't notice you referred to the FAC page :) GizzaChat © 10:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I should have opposed. It has no graphs, no tables as Collingwood does. Does not meet my levels of perfection. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I should collate the data for his ICC bowling rating, since Raven4x4x is a bit uncertain about doing graphs and wickets and such. And I dug up a bit more about his doosra investigation which I can improve. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing cricinfo statsguru

Can anyone help? I'm trying to work on the Marcus Trescothick article, and want to reference the number of games he has been England captain. I can filter the results on statsguru (cricinfo), but the resulting URL is absolutely huge, and impossible to manage. Any other suggestions? MDCollins (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

HowStat? [2] -- ALoan (Talk) 15:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what problem you have with long URLs. I often include them in quiz answers for example. <fx:Pokes ALoan>. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I just felt the long URLs were getting in the way. Doesn't really matter, but I'd forgotten about HowStat. MDCollins (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a problem with it, and it's mostly necessary on FAs. Harbhajan Singh and Paul Collingwood all have references to about 10 different cricinfo filters, to get the full details of their careers by the numbers. It also automatically updates, unlike a news piece, which will go out of date eventually. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] URGENT: Main page article

An editor has removed all the images from the article, with justification provided at the article talk page. This is highly embarrassing on the day it's WP's FA. --Dweller 11:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he has a point, unfortunately. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless, what can be done? I'd help myself, but I'm no expert on fair use images. I'd expect these concerns to be raised at FAC. The article was there for absolutely ages and every element of it was intimately dissected. He has a point, certainly, but this is awful and is a huge indictment of FAC. --Dweller 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I was worried this might happen. I've had fair use troubles with this particular editor before. I guess the best thing we could use would be a picture of a cricket stadium or even a picture of an ODI. Surely someone who attended the Opening Ceremony to the World Cup posted photos onto the internet with free tags... --mdmanser 12:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's the one and only free photo on Flickr that has anything to do with the world cup. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ali-sh/272980562/ --mdmanser 12:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Perhaps this map,

recaptioned, should appear on the main page? --Dweller 12:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's get something on the main page. The map's not an ideal illustration, but it looks professional and is no worse than a number of pictures that have appeared on there (the Buffy picture a few days ago was fairly dire). HornetMike 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rumble" (lol) has added the map (thanks) at the top of the article. Does it need an admin to get the Main page amended? --Dweller 13:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it does. I've added it now, but I think it'd could be a bit larger...take a look? Sam Vimes | Address me 13:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, double it in size I would think... The Rambling Man 13:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Main page a few minutes ago was carrying an image of a cricket ball instead of the map. No discussion of that change here or at the article talk page, nor at the talk page for the Main page. Anyone know who did it and why? The map was far more appropriate. The shenanigans today reflect badly on this WikiProject, the FAC process and Wikipedia in general. It's been an embarrassment. Let's learn from it. --Dweller 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This was the edit that changed the picture.[3] It included the edit summary RV to ball. Even at that size, the text was unreadable at higher resolutions. We usually adhere to a 100px maximum image width because substantially greater widths cause problems at lower resolutions. --Golden Wattle talk 19:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. As non admins can't see those edit summaries (AFAIK) it might be worth the admins who make such chanegs dropping a line somewhere so us mortals understand what's going on. --Dweller 19:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why you can't see it - I don't think admin vision is required. Note the relevant page was Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 13, 2007 - perhaps you don't understand that the main page is made up of transcluded pages. --Golden Wattle talk 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please revert it back to my version? I have arguments that will let them stay but i cant revert it my self as it will be breaking the 3rr. Also they shouldn't have even removed those pictures without finishing the discussing! Also i can tell you the trophy pictures are free from flickr because i found it myself! and so that should definetly stay and the rest shouldn't be removed without finishing the discussion! so someone please revet it back!--Thugchildz 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to provide those arguments, where are they?--Golden Wattle talk 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added some on the talk page of the article and have more to back them up so please revert it back to my version(original version), why do they get to decide whats fair use and whats not? all the pictures there are about the subject THE WORLD CUP!--Thugchildz 01:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Also is it possible for the trophy picture to be on the main page now? I am really trying to not assume bad faith but it seems like they are only doing this to ruin the articles moment to shine! coming up with bogus reasons like "thinking its not free"...also these have been reviewed in the FAC and nothing has changed since in the pictures so definitely should stay if it passed the FAC.--Thugchildz 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think so - my assume good faith only stretches so far - it looks like a copyvio to me--Golden Wattle talk 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame they had to mess up the page on the day its on the main page and without even giving us a chance to reply and now that its not in the main page no one seems to care about the picture "fair use status" anymore...--Thugchildz 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png

Please take a look at the deletion request, people are making judgments and assuming bad faith which is causing them to do this. Please assume good faith and voice your opinion on this--Thugchildz 04:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It looks very like a copyvio to me, even if we can't find the original. And the deletion discussion has shown that the same Flickr user has uploaded at least one other photo which he certainly didn't take. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
... and I believe I've found the original now. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 World Cup Matches

I just thought I'd let everyone know there is an AfD for: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 World Cup Matches. - Ozzykhan 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On that AfD: would anyone have a rampant fit of deletionism if I introduced User:Sam Vimes/Sandbox13 into the main namespace - preferably as 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage - and would anyone have any comments to make on it? Apart from adding fixtures and tables, that is. (I agree in principle that the World Cup Matches article is pretty bad - just stating the scorecard without any attempt of tying them together - but I'd better check whether new waves hasn't gone over the project in the past week without me noticing... ;) ) Sam Vimes | Address me 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Would it be better to have all the matches in one article, or is it better to split them into two or three articles? I'm not sure. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the articles could rapidly grow to 200 kB, at least judging by the general contributions around the 2006–07 season. At present it's 41 kB - almost perfect size. Think of the people on dial-up! Sam Vimes | Address me 22:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats nice work Sam, I would prefer your version than just the plain old scorecard. This gives us a chance to get things on the ITN. Also can you have a look at the opening ceremony page and try to improve it, I would say that make different articles for each group then super eight and the the finals.--Thugchildz 22:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Does everyone have Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket on their watchlists? I tend not to put a notice here too if an AfD is already listed there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Player Infoboxes

Are we going to make a concentrated effort to update each World Cup's players infobox after each game? I imagine a few of them will get updated after each game anyway, but shall we make sure all of them are? Or just wait until the end of the group games? Or the end of the tournament? Or... well that's it! HornetMike 21:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

They are going to change a frightful amount.
It's one of the things IP editors seem to be very happy to do, though, so I suppose if we just keep an eye on Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Articles I suppose we'll be okay. I don't think any kind of concentrated effort is required, too much work (says the one who updated the "list of <nationality> ODI cricketers" before the WC...) Sam Vimes | Address me 21:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't the infoboxes all have "as of" dates, with links to cricinfo or CricketArchive? Anons have a habit of updating only one stat, and leaving the rest the same. Shouldn't we try to make sure that the articles remain accurate, according to the cited dates? We can update them for the World Cup matches in due course. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm. I suppose that is a point.
Anyway, for the moment Shyam seems happy enough to update the infoboxes, so I'm not going to stop him. :) Sam Vimes | Address me 10:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another FA

Well, this morning Raul654 promoted Adam Gilchrist to featured article status. Phew! Thanks to everyone who provided comments and suggestions and all those editors who made a difference! The Rambling Man 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As you did most of the work, the biggest plaudits go to you, TRM. --Dweller 10:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect image please

An admin could now unprotect Image:Cricket World Cup best results.png. Thanks, Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It was never actually protected. Probably because I didn't remember that when I added it to the main page. *g* Sam Vimes | Address me 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I just believed the notice on it! Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to actually protect images on the Main Page these days - cascading protection gets them automatically when they appear on the Main Page. Having looked just now, it still seem to be protected, but there is nothing in the protection log. It must still be covered by cascading protection, but I can't see why. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Cup

I'm new and I don't know how everything works with the main page but I'm being told that the World Cup won't be mentioned on the ITN section until a winner is discovered. Can nothing be done. If we have to improve the Opening Ceremony page, Cricinfo has a very good summary which can be used by the article to source an event-by-event summary. Sfdasfr 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I think there should be a definite mention of the world cup being started on the 13th and some lines about the opening ceremony which was great! with over 10,000 people attending it. anyways Sfdasfr you should join the project if you haven't already--Thugchildz 05:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also can some one semi-protect the 2007 cricket world cup and the cricket world cup page, they are going to get a lot of vandalizing when the it gets on the main page--Thugchildz 05:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we try and avoid protecting the featured article on the main page, so that new visitors can see that Wikipedia really is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We almost never protect articles which appear on the main page. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's just be alert for "cricket is poop" and "cricket is gay" type witticisms tomorrow. Who said comedy is dead? --Dweller 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we can have a link in the ITN column Cricket World Cup results. I remember there was something there for the Euro football tournament, the Olympics, and the Football World Cup. We should have this put up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that only happened for the Summer Olympics. A few people tried to add one for the Football World Cup and Winter Olympics but it didn't stick. --Cherry blossom tree 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the football WC stuck in the end. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the football people initially tried to get a "today's results" type entry in ITN; in the end, they settled for a single line entry, something like "The world cup continues - (link to recent results)". We should try for the latter for the duration of the tournament. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do the latter at least. Sfdasfr 06:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats the ITN? Also it starts tomorrow! Someone who knows how to get it on the main page please do so or let me know the procedure of how to request for it and stuff. Also whoever has a wikinews account keep the news on the cwc posted, NCAA stuff is up there, cwc news should defenetly be there.--Thugchildz 06:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

ITN is the In the news on the main page. GizzaChat © 06:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The expected poop-fest is on. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cricket_World_Cup&curid=7239&action=history) Apparently, it's a sport for pussies. I've never seen a cat so much as hold a bat. --Dweller 10:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Speak to Mrs Slocombe. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok so after a bad for the project. Can someone get "The cricket world cup continues - (link to recent results)". on the main page?--Thugchildz 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone has to write a paragraph about today's game, else 2007 Cricket World Cup won't qualify as the article needs to be updated. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

how about the one in wikinews?

We can have a page there with all the matches in it...--Thugchildz 04:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please be aware that User:Nobleeagle, who was instrumental in the Cricket World Cup FA, has unfortunately left the project, last Thursday, after having his identity revealed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats a messed up!!!!1st blackjack now nobleeagle...hope he'll be back one day with different name...he was a great contributor!shit like this makes a lot of people frustrated and leave, I was thinking about it today because of all the hard of on the cwc and then someone comes messes it up but decided not to let them drive me away. I hope members of this project wont let things drive them away but deal with it. wish nobleeagle the best!--Thugchildz 04:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I have asked about the ITN strapline at Template talk:In the news. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Main Page current comment from one editor indicates we can get the result of the entire tournament in ITN but no more. Further, it would of course, need to be an updated relevant article. We could either do it in the existing 2007 WC article, the World Cup FA, or create a new one just for the final. --Dweller 12:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There is more discussion at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Disappointing, but there we are. I suspect that rather a lot of our Australian, Indian, Pakistani, UK, etc, readers are going to want a link from the Main Page. I wonder what they will do for the 2008 Olympics. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We must get a line in the ITN, look at all the headlines this world cup is making...irish the, debuting in the world cup tie & beat test-nation zimbabwe and pakistan. While Bangladesh(who for so long have been picked on by critics) beat one of the favorites-India. What an dramatic day, 2 upsets in the same day--Thugchildz 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Woolmer just died, its sad really...After a excellent day for cricket it gets brought down ...But can you guys support the inclusion of this news at least in the ITN Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates.--Thugchildz 18:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thugchildz, I agree that Woolmer's death should be in ITN. (But I don't think that an ongoing link should be provided throughout the tournament, or every sport will want one). However, I would also like to say that your comments at WP:ITN/C are out of order, and make it less likely that this item will be accepted, not more. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Cup Template Numbers

I notice the players aren't wearing special tournament numbers, just their normal ones. Therefore, what's the point in having the fake 1-15 numbers in the World Cup templates? HornetMike 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussions show that most people think the templates shouldn't be there at all. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, I agree, but seeing as they're there at the moment do you think it's worth getting rid of incorrect information? I may well do, if I have time. HornetMike 10:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Woolmer

The story is getting more and more coverage in the British media. I don't know what happened as a result of the ITN discussion above, but it's a major story. --Dweller 18:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is substantial discussion of this very issue - support, even! - at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JSOTR and Taylor-Francis press

Does anyone here have access to JSTOR and Taylor Francis group ? The latter has some useful articles on cricket history and the former should also have some. (Add : the TFP link doesn't seem to be right one. There is another that leads to articles available online for members) Tintin 07:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have access to both, through ATHENS, but not to all the content that each provide, only the individual bits that my institution is prepared to pay for. :) Which particular journals are you trying to get access to? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I was specifically thinking about a long article on early Indian cricket in taylorandfrancis which often appears in google searches. I'll find the details and come back. Tintin 11:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mischief?

Among his many good works User:ALoan keeps an eye on the activities of the IP editor who regularly adds names of slightly obscure cricketers to the to-do list at the top of this page. The same IP editor later supplies a stub biography, usually on the subject's Talk page, which ALoan then heroically sorts out by moving to a real page. In the past, this IP editor has been identified with the erstwhile "vegan vandal", who asserted that various cricketers were practising, if not militant, vegetarians, assertions that were deemed in most cases unprovable and very probably untrue.

Vegetarian assertions seem to have disappeared, but I'm wondering if our IP friend hasn't moved on to different forms of mischief. Roger Broughton (cricketer), whose death in a work-related accident while replacing power cables might be worthy of comment, has the bare bones of his cricket career outlined plus the single comment that his favourite song was November Rain. Another cricketer, (Campbell Furlong), has a favourite film: it is said to be Shampoo.

It looks to me like someone's having some fun at our expense with these stray "facts". I'm proposing giving them 24 hours to be "proved", and, if they're not proven, then going in and amending them. The cricket facts are, as far as I can see, correct, so I'd leave them alone. And it's not every stub created by this IP editor that has an odd "fact" in it: around one in three, I think. Anyway, if anyone can prove my suspicions unfounded, there's 24 hours before I go and do the deed (and 24 hours also to enjoy the fruits of a lively imagination). Johnlp 22:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. I had been assuming that the articles were sufficiently short that there was not much chance of them saying anything too incorrect! Perhaps I should just delete them in future.
There is a list of IPs that are likley to be involved at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_29 (and I have just added a load more). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I am spamming the IPs' talk pages with a "thanks, but please stop" message too... -- ALoan (Talk) 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear from me too. I've moved quite a few of these stubs from talk pages to article page which I picked up by scanning Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Articles for redlinks in the articles section. Invariably they have a talk page with a stub article content. There's a few there now. eg Talk:Craig King, Talk:Jemmy Dean, Talk:Raymond Otim. —Moondyne 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Raymond Otim has an interesting "favourite TV programme" which, were he to read it, would probably be actionable! Johnlp 07:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no one came forward to defend them, so I took out 12 "interesting" facts from 12 biogs going back about six months. Not too much damage, I reckon, though several of the stubs that remain are pretty poor stuff. Johnlp 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cross namespace redirects

Where these talk pages are being moved into the mainspace, I think it would be a good idea to remove the redirect left on the talk page. The articles are mostly obscure stubs, and editors will probably not have created links to a talk page with no article, so I don't think they are needed. They will only serve to confuse editors, who will wonder why clicking on the talk button lands them back on the article. I've done the few that are linked on this page. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BlackJack

No sooner has he returned, to widespread joy, than he has run slap-bang into speedy deletion of the articles he was creating on Australian cricket seasons. Just look at User talk:BlackJack and User talk:Gnangarra and this log.

I have restored 1855-56 Australian cricket season as an example. To my mind, this sort of article, stubby though it is, is not so devoid of content as to require being deleted. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He's replaced his user page with the following: "Wikipedia sucks. This user will not waste any more of his valuable time dealing with arseholes." I'll refrain from making a personal attack, but it's hard to resist. I'd welcome him back to improve his stubs to the level where they won't be deleted, but not if he's going to pick up his ball and go home at the slightest provocation. Andrew nixon 11:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This looks very unfortunate. Jack appears to have accepted that his previous policy of creating stubs with (virtually) no content was going to run into trouble, and was starting to fill out some of them. But he recreated the stubs faster than he could fill them, with the inevitable result that it appeared like defiance of a deletion that had been agreed by consensus.
If Jack reads this, which I hope he will, then one way to avoid this kind of officialdom is to use the sandbox to recreate the articles, launching them back into the main space only when they have some real content as 1855-56 Australian cricket season now has. I, for one, think that we need people like Jack for their expertise and for their willingness to add real encyclopedic content. Sure, he's touchy, but in this case, there looks to me to have been hasty reactions on both sides, and the sandbox provides a way for Jack to achieve what he wanted to do and for officialdom to have its way as well. Johnlp 22:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We should be grateful to ALoan for recreating that article as an example. I presume the others (up to 1883, I gather?) are/were similar and indeed I understand that the seasons in which English tours occurred contained much more still.

The consensus arrived at in the previous discussion was that the articles contained so little definite information (they were bare stubs) that it would be better (as Stephen Turner in particular pointed out) to simply have the red links until such time as someone would be inclined to expand them. I don't know if there is any time limit here but surely not. The fact that the recreated articles appeared in days rather than months matters not one jot.

The article recreated by ALoan is a perfectly acceptable stub and is much more informative than the vast majority of stubs I have seen on the site and on the cricket project itself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it and it should be retained. It provides useful information to the reader whilst having the potential for further development. It is notable because it is about first-class cricket in Australia. In my view, it can only have been deleted because the administrator in question is incompetent or is prejudiced against the subject-matter.

Deletion of the recreated articles is at best a knee-jerk reaction [personal attack removed], the author has met the requirements of the discussion consensus. [personal attack removed]. When he was alerted by Black Falcon (who has over-reacted) that the articles had been recreated, why did he not place a notice on this page and ask the project members to review and discuss? [personal attack removed].

As for Black Jack's reaction, I have in the past thought he has been too impatient when he has encountered these people but on this occasion he is absolutely justified. His reason for leaving in January was understandable given the amount of work he had done to improve the cricket project stubs and it took quite a bit of effort to persuade him to return, especially as he has now become preoccupied with his own site. He came back in good faith intending to "provide information for the readers" as he always says. He knew the Australian seasons had been hit but he agreed with the consensus and with Stephen's view in particular. As he still had the offline versions of those articles, he could easily expand them and spent a few hours on Tuesday evening doing that. 1855-56 is presumably typical. He checked the site yesterday morning and [personal attack removed].

As for "slightest provocation", I think "last straw" is the phrase you are looking for. Clearly you have not encountered the same degree of provocation by any means. I suggest that our former colleague jguk would understand provocation by Wikipedia administration: note that word "former".

Those articles should be recreated and subjected to review by this project. [personal attack removed].

This whole affair illustrates precisely what is wrong with Wikipedia. --GeorgeWilliams 07:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to resort to personal attacks either here or on my talk page. If you wanted to know how/why I made these decisions then all anyone needed to do was ask.
When I closed this AfD there was a list at the end of the AfD discussion which said there was 124 articles, I didnt count them(seemed more like a thousand by the end) but I did check each one to ensure its contents appeared to be within the intended purpose of the AfD and the consensus there was to delete all the stub articles, so as to encourage editors to recreate expanded articles or condense them into larger time periods. Given the volume of articles I used popups to do the deletion on each one I also ensured that the size was in the range 700-900k which was each article was. On the AfD I left the statement when closing that if any articles had erroneously been listed(subsequently deleted) please contact me I'll restore them.
I recieved a message from Black Falcon indicating that someone had started recreating the stubs, I then went and checked each one, the first thing I noticed was that it appeared to be systematic recreation starting with the first one in the navigation box and moving forward from there. With the exception of the 1882-83 season article which now had mention of a tour by England the other articles appeared to be the same as before. I deleted them based on CSD:G4 recreation of previously deleted material.
After doing all of this I contacted BlackJack and left a message explaining why they were deleted for a second time. I also indicated that I hadnt deleted 1882-83 as it was expanded though still a stub. I also suggested that if there were any articles on that original list that had been erroneously listed I would restore them. I also suggested that if he just wanted to recreated the stubs to either go through WP:DRV or discuss the matter here first. Gnangarra 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
edit conflict, while I dont believe the second deletions based on WP:CSD#G4 where invalid, I have maintained from the moment that I closed the AfD that any or all of the articles can be recreated in an expanded form and that any that had been erroneously listed I would restore. Gnangarra

NB: Gnangarra was told by BlackJack that the restored articles contained additional information and he refused to consider restoring them. He would not listen to reason and insisted on Jack going through some convoluted procedure to fob him off. Hence Jack's reaction. --GeorgeWilliams 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion?

Well, I sympathise with User:BlackJack frustration; I can also understand why User:Gnangarra deleted them speedily if he thought they were simple recreations of the earlier deleted versions.
I have just restored 1854-55 Australian cricket season as another example - if these two are typical of the whole, then the second wholesale deletion was mistaken, in my view. It will take some time to work through the rest to see which should be undeleted. I suppose we ought to go through WP:DRV? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hang on. There was a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1850-51 Australian cricket season for the articles to be deleted and Gnangarra was absolutely correct in implementing the community vote. Other than the fact i voted, I would have done the same thing. I also sympathise with BlackJack, [personal attack removed]. —Moondyne 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The deletion debate was advertised here on 11 March [4] and the vote was 7 delete, 1 keep, 1 merge. —Moondyne 12:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Were the recreated pages identical to the old ones or did they contain more data ? If they had atleast a sentence or two more, it makes the AfD argument invalid. Tintin 13:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
1854–55: one more sentence. 1853-54: result of match played. 1852-53: one more sentence. 1851-52: result of match played. 1850-51: result of match played. Can't be bothered to check the rest, but I expect it's similar.
I agree with Tintin here. G4 is "identical to page deleted", which it wasn't. Sam Vimes | Address me 13:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Yes, I know about the AfD - that is why I mentioned WP:DRV. The articles that were speedily deleted the second time do not contain the same content as the ones that were deleted the first time around.
Here is a diff comparing the version of 1855-56 Australian cricket season that was deleted following the AfD "discussion" and the version that was speedily deleted after it was recreated. It has gone from an essentially contentless one-sentence substub to an (admittedly short but entirely respectable) stub of two sentences.
Thinking further, perhaps a better solution for these articles would be to consolidate them into decades or periods - Cricket in Australia in the 1850s or Australian cricket from 1850-51 to 1859-60? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it appears I misread this and was upset by the attack on Gnangarra on his talk page (which I still find unwarranted). I'd support a DRV. —Moondyne 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
ALoan's suggestion looks good, atleast for the 1850s and 1860s, because there is hardly any per season stats or match summaries to include. Tintin 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to go through more bureaucratic mess by going for a DRV ? Since G4 was invalidly applied here, isn't it just sufficient to point it out to the deleting admin and get his okay as per Wikipedia:Etiquette, assuming that he will agree. Tintin 14:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the original decision to delete, and I agree with Aloan's suggestion as a compromise to resolve the matter. There is not going to be enough to fill out full articles, and another issue is that there was no "Australian" cricket season, for the simple reason that there was no Australia for it to pertain to, and what is now Australia was six distinct colonies each with the same status as New Zealand or South Africa. "Cricket in Australia" would be a far more correct usage. Orderinchaos 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aggregation?

Perhaps it is not necessary, save to salvage the content and create redirects? I don't know early Australian cricket at all well, but I see that the first first-class match was in February 1851, and the first Test was in 1876 (of course). Does anything else of particular note happen between these dates? Perhaps we only need one article between History of Australian cricket to 1850 and 1876-77 Australian cricket season, which would be History of Australian cricket from 1850 to 1876? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are three English tours in 1861, 1862 and 1873 which should have seperate articles. Tintin 14:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Intercolonial cricket in Australia covers some of this in terms of domestic cricket. Johnlp 14:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The early Test tours are all aggregated in History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883 without separate articles. I can't find separate articles for the early non-Test tours - presumably they could all be included in one article for 1850 to 1876, or would you propose a finer sub-division? One for each year looks excessive, to be honest, given how little cricket seems to have been played and/or recorded. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I support this proposal - it seems a much better solution than having numerous short stubs. Let's start with the one article, if it gets too large we can easily split it. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me too. Can we also change 1856-57 Australian cricket season etc to a redirect to aritcles like History of Australian cricket from 1850 to 1876 so that the template will look neat ? Tintin 07:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

NB: the key point here is that the information provided by Jack must be restored as it meets the consensus of the AFD discussion. I know he thinks each season should have its own article but, then again, using his own precedent re 1697-1725 (England) and other spans like 1811-1815, 1914-1918 and 1940-1945, I suggest the following to resolve this: separate articles for all England tours; decade articles for 1851-60, 1861-70, 1871-80 and 1881-90 followed by individual season articles from 1890-91.

If it is tedious and time-consuming to restore the information then Gnangarra should do it. --GeorgeWilliams 07:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Done as per [[User:ALoan|ALoan] and Tintin, two of the most sensible people on the site. Time for everyone else including me to learn lessons and move on. --BlackJack | talk page 07:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said, and well done, Jack. Johnlp 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Most appreciated. I'll go ahead and make redirects to History of Australian cricket from 1850 to 1876, then. :) Sam Vimes | Address me 11:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)