Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Cricket is not a vital article??

...but Baseball and American football are. See the removal here ([1]) and the "debate" here Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Sport --Dweller 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the list of "vital" sports, it seems to equate to those that are most popular in the US. Otherwise how to explain the absence of soccer, the most popular sport worldwide? The whole thing seems a shambles. Why is athletics an entry on its own rather than under sports, for instance? It's also surprising that tennis and golf don't appear. JH (talk page) 09:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually soccer is listed but what a joke of a list. Certainly more sports should be added or the US ones removed. I would have thought that any sport NOT played in the US would be vital from the perspective of a resource for education. As a Brit in the US, I have found that many people here have an interest in the question "Just what the hell is Cricket?", so clearly it is a vital article. David D. (Talk) 16:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely a "vital articles" article is a complete breach of WP:NPOV. I would remove all the American sports, especially basketball, and include only sports that are played and supported worldwide. Where are motor sport and cycling? Boxing and horse racing should also be included. If they are going to include American sports then why haven't they included every other nation's sports? For example, why aren't Gaelic football or kabaddi there? Not American and so not vital, eh?

Why too have they got Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded? What on Earth is the point of all this? It is an exercise in POV and should be put in AfD. --BlackJack | talk page 18:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support this is if it came up. David D. (Talk) 14:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tried to put a "prod" tag on it but that wasn't allowed so I've kicked off this discussion on the talk page. --BlackJack | talk page 06:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanath Jayasuriya, Glenn McGrath, Darren Lehmann tendentious edits

A certain User:Chidis has continually put borderline defamatory vandalism on these pages with unsourced stuff about racism, presenting them as fact. He has also been making other racist edits on other pages (mainly against Tamils) so I have blocked him, but I would like some more eyes on these pages in case he comes back with a sock army. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bart King Peer Review

While monitoring the second Peer Review of the great John Barton King, the suggestion was made for "a table of King's scores vs each team" and "a chart of his scores over a period of time." Charts, tables, and graphs are not my forté. Would anyone else be able to do something like that?--Eva bd 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the start of a table of scores etc versus various teams. If you (or someone else) wants to complete it then that's great, otherwise I will come back and finish it off tomorrow (time for bed right now!). Also, User:Raven4x4x does some good batting charts, such as the one on for Paul Collingwood the right. He(?) was very helpful last time I asked for one. Hope this is useful to you. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  Batting[1] Bowling[2]
Opposition Matches Runs Average High Score 50 / 100 Runs Wickets Average Best 5I / 10M
AM Wood's XI 1 32 32 32 0 / 0 - - - - 0 / 0
Australians 7 133 12.09 45 0 / 0 615 41 15.00 5-22 5 / 0
BJT Bosanquet's XI 2 22 5.50 9 0 / 0 267 23 11.50 8-78 3 / 1
Cambridge University 2 74 18.50 53 1 / 0 303 13 23.30 5-136 1 / 0
Derbyshire 1 14 14.00 14 0 / 0 116 12 9.66 7-28 2 / 1
F Mitchell's XI 2 39 19.50 16 0 / 0 243 20 12.15 7-55 3 / 1
... ... ... ... ... . / . ... ... ... ... . / .
Overall 65 2134 20.51 113* 1 / 8 6497 415 15.65 10-53 38 / 11

This Table Maker is a good page. You copy and paste your table into it, from word or notepad or whatever, and it generates an HTML table. Don't bother setting any of the parameters, you don't have to. You then copy that HTML and paste it onto your Wikipedia page putting something like this {| class="wikitable" width="60%" align="center" ! colspan=3| in front of it to make it a nice colour and set it out properly. I'm sure there's a much better way of doing it but it's what I worked out anyway and I put a couple of them on the England Cricket Team page and they look ok. Nick mallory 07:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This information is all most helpful, gents. I've talked to the Great Maker of Charts and will get to the table today if I have time and Saturday if I don't. Thanks so much.--Eva bd 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Which aconite?

Both of the articles dabbed from aconite claim that that plant has been implicated in the death of Bob Woolmer (one of them twice). Does anyone know which is the real aconite? Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The description of the top one certainly matches what cricinfo reported in terms of the results of the poison. But there isn't a desscription for the second - they might have the same effects for all I know. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

History of US cricket

Greetings All! I'recently done a relatively bold edit of the History of United States cricket article. I listed it on the main project page, but would love some input from other editors. Any help that can be offered is much appreciated. I'm planning on putting it up for general peer review in the next week or two, depending on project members' views.--Eva bd 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Article has been reviewed and rated for quality and importance. Good work, Eva. --BlackJack | talk page 07:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.--Eva bd 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indipper

Is there any difference between this and the inswinger? GizzaChat © 11:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it as a slang variant, but curiously I've never heard of an outdipper! Redirect? --Dweller 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Redirect. I notice Outdipper has already been redirected. –MDCollins (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
An indipper curves into a batsman before pitching. An inswinger curves into the batsman after pitching. Indippers often are yorkers, mistakenly called inswinging yorkers. A true outdipper is rarely bowled. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've seen balls swing in (and out) before seaming. --Dweller 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this may be a regional thing. Nichalp is in India. In England, I'm fairly sure "dip" = "swing", but perhaps on the subcontinent, there's a different usage. Perhaps some of our other subcontinental editors can contribute what they think. (And from other regions; could be other English editors will disagree with me) --Dweller 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought dip referred to vertical movement and swing to lateral. Johnlp 15:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Later clarification: So an indipper is a dipping inswinger and an outdipper is a dipping outswinger. Johnlp 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case, would an outdipper move upwards from the hand?! The Rambling Man 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Presumably, if Chris Waddle played cricket, he'd be remembered for that. --Dweller 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've heard Wasim Akram use the term a lot during his playing days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is some relevant discussion in the WT:CRIC archive, and outdipper had an AFD just over a year ago. To be honest, I have never heard of "dip" (in or out) as a form of swing before pitching (and, unlike Nichalp, I have never discussed the matter with Wasim :p). Some balls swing (in or out) before pitching, and some afterwards. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't clear above. I was trying to make the same point. In response to the "before pitching" comment, I meant I've seen swing before and after pitching. However, I now really don't understand what kind of "dip" is meant here. Is this a quick-bowler's equivalent of flight? How does a quick bowler vary the rate at which the ball descends vertically... and what would be the opposite ("bowled rarely"), a full-toss that goes higher and higher over the batsman's head? --Dweller 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd understand an indipper as a yorker length delivery which swings in late, maybe with reverse swing, at the last moment. An inswinger goes much earlier with 'banana' swing from the hand. I've never heard 'outdipper' used as a term. 'Dip' in terms of a drop in flight is a term I've heard in connection with spinners - the good bowlers get it to 'dip' in flight so you can't get to the pitch of the ball. That's not 'indip', that's just 'dip' though. Wasim Akram used to swing the ball both ways at once at 90 mph so I guess he can call any delivery anything he wants. As for the ball that goes straight over the batsman's head for four wides (six wides?) I'm sure Saj Mahmood is working on that one in the nets right now with the full approval of Duncan Fletcher. Nick mallory 09:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphian Tours

I'm trying to make a clearinghouse of Philadelphian articles for myself. You can reach it in my user space here. I've got a bunch of players listed that need articles made and a a list of overseas tours. Did I miss any Philadelphian tours–first-class or others?--Eva bd 14:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Godleman

This young man has just achieved something pretty special. I wondered just how special. See his article and feel free to edit! --Dweller 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What a remarkable young man. 18 years old and a 1st class avg of 145... and rising. --Dweller 14:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He's almost as good a bat as Jason Gillespie! 203.108.239.12 02:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Test aggregates articles

Progress of Test cricket career run aggregates record and Progress of Test cricket career wicket taking record were started a few months ago by a user who appears to have abandoned them before completion. I'm not entirely convinced that they're notable. —Moondyne 05:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not put the successive record holders on the List of Test cricket records? Doing it by year is pointless really. This list is just a copy of the Howstat page and if no-one can be bothered finishing it then it should go. Nick mallory 06:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've prod'ed them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for something like this when helping write Cricket in Australia. I think it is notable and deserves to stay, although rather than detailing each change in score, it could be trimmed down to listing when the record changed hands, i.e. Gavaskar to Border to Lara. --Mattinbgn/ talk 09:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if we keep the data, it should be in List of Test cricket records. We really don't need a new article for each record. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. --Mattinbgn/ talk 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

History of the English Cricket Team

This is linked from the 'England Cricket Team' page and it seems an important one to do. The originator of it did a good job on about half the decades and I'm going to fill in something for the others just to fill the blanks. If someone could have a look at it and add a few more points and details wherever they see fit that would be great. Nick mallory 08:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I started work a couple of years ago on a detailed 'English cricket team in the XXXXs' series (see User:Ngb/English cricket team in the 2000s for the beginnings of my first effort): I don't really have time to work on this right now, but if anyone wants to take it on you'd be more than welcome. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 08:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
These should all be renamed "England cricket team" per our discussions above. Plenty of England players over time have not been English. --Dweller 09:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a proper look if/when I have time, but have had a quick shufti at the first couple of sections. A few thoughts. It's rather odd that the first section is entitled "1860-1900", and has a couple of pictures of English touring teams from pre Test days, when the actual text only begins with the first Test in 1877. There should either be some text about pre-Test touring sides, or the section title and the pictures should be changed. If in the introductory paragraph just two great England players are going to be mentioned by name, I'm not sure that Botham should be one of them. Actually, I'm not even sure that Grace should be the other, since he didn't play his first Test till he was already past his best and carried on too long, so that his Test record is comparatively modest. He's a far less significant figure in Tests than he is in first-class cricket as a whole. I think it's probably simplest not to mention any individuals by name in the introduction. JH (talk page) 09:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not saying that it's even half done, but it's all a good start. It'll all change radically over time like everything else. I was just pointing out the fact that it seems quite an important page and it had some blanks in. I've written a bit of guff now to fill in the missing later decades anyway but anyone's additions would be a great bonus. As to what it's called, I'm just going by what the page is called now, it should England but I don't feel it's my place to change it. `Nick mallory 10:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely remove the two names as per JH and call it England team (in fact, I've done that). If only two names are going to be given in the intro, they should be Rhodes and Trueman; or Sutcliffe and Hutton; or Jackson and Vaughan; or Hirst and Boycott; or Hawke and Illingworth; or Verity and Close; or Ulyett and Hoggard; or Emmett and Bowes; etc.  ;-)
The first section should be titled 1859 to 1900 depending on the end date but we really ought to go back to 1845 when the All-England Eleven was founded as this team and its UEE rival combined in 1859 to form the first England international team: see England cricket team in North America in 1859. I would have 1845 to 1876, then 1877 to 1900 as the first two sections.
Nearly all the stuff about WG in the first section is completely irrelevant and should be taken out: the article is about England, not about WG playing for Gloucestershire. --BlackJack | talk page 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"If only two names are going to be given in the intro, they should be Rhodes and Trueman; or Sutcliffe and Hutton; or Jackson and Vaughan; or Hirst and Boycott; or Hawke and Illingworth; or Verity and Close; or Ulyett and Hoggard; or Emmett and Bowes; etc.  ;-)" Or Booth and Binks. ;-0 Johnlp 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
But, though he's a wicketkeeper whose name begins with B, perhaps Richard Blakey would be going too far for even the most patriotic of Yorkshiremen. :) JH (talk page) 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, did you see the South Africa debacle? I may take up squash. There may not be too much more history to write about in the future if we keep playing like that. 124.183.228.151 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the article should be going into so much detail on individual series. I think it would be better to instead include links to The Ashes and to the articles that already exist on individual Test series (admittedly some of those are still stubs). We don't want too much duplication of material. JH (talk page) 09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but it's only a couple of lines on each series on the mid twentieth century decades I'm filling in, and I think it gives a useful overview. Someone new to the subject would go to the England Team page, then follow the link to the history page, then find something which interests them or is relevant to what they want and go to the series page in question, when they all exist I suppose. It would be easy to link them from this page. A quick summary just gives the result and a few names of outstanding performers really. If someone just wants a quick history of the whole thing then this page is good I think.

I haven't touched the longer stuff (e.g. up to the end of the Golden Age and then from 1990 to date) which was done before I looked at the page, that may be too long, I wouldn't like to judge. I'm just filling in the 1910 - 1980 stuff which hadn't really been covered at all, apart from Bodyline. If someone was a new fan, unlikely after South Africa last night, they might know nothing of England's history and this gives them a place to start. A read of this page and they'd have a pretty good idea of some major players, series and events. As I said, I didn't start this page, I'm just filling in the gaps. I'll leave it to the more experienced chaps here to hone it as they see fit in time. Nick mallory 09:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideally the dates e.g. 1934 or 1974/75 in the article could be linked to the article which goes through that tour or series in real detail. This history page just gives a brief into to the whole thing. Nick mallory 04:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Phillip Hughes

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Hughes (cricketer) which raises an issue people here might like to consider. The player in question hasn't played a first-class or List A match. But he has captained his country at Under-19 level. Is that notable enough to satisfy WP:BIO#Special cases?

And for a follow-up question, what if he'd played at Under-19 level but not captained? Or captained at Under-17 level? Where do we draw the line here?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd draw the line at first class cricket. Every first class cricketer is in, and you have to be really notable - like a Collins or another record holder of the highest ever score or the inventor of something important - to get in otherwise. There has to be a clear line somewhere to end the debates and this seems the most obvious one. You could argue for anyone who's appeared in List A cricket too I suppose but Youth Players for me, even for their country, don't cut it. If he's any good he'll soon make his first class debut anyway. We can't defend every single cricketer, just stay firm over what matters, which is the first class game. If it's decided that we think national youth players ARE notable, I will of course change my mind and argue the same on the AfD! Nick mallory 09:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. As I understand it, any other criteria is just a helpful pointer as to whether the sources are likely to exist. So, are there multiple non-trivial published works available? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I'd agree with Nick mallory with the added point that I feel in this day and age, List A players should be given an equal weight as First Class cricketers. As a suitable cut of, maybe youth players should not be included otherwise unless, as mentioned, some exceptional record/other notable feature is present. An extension of Ollie's point is therefore these published works are not likely to be available. –MDCollins (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

They have to be first-class or the equivalent of first-class. Strictly speaking, "first-class cricket" did not begin until 1947. It is a nonsense term invented by jolly good chaps with three initials, a school tie and a sense of unreality. What we have to ask ourselves is whether a match is major or minor (e.g., Second XI, Minor Counties, inter-parish games). For example, a game between Hampshire (Hambledon) and All-England in 1772 is unquestionably major and certainly of a higher standard than anything involving university teams since 1947. Equally, a National League match in 2007 between Yorkshire and that lot over t'Pennines is also a major match (providing we win). But, neither of my two examples is "officially" a first-class match. The best guide on this is CricketArchive, which is itself guided by the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians. If a match is included on the CA database as a Test or first-class or major match; or if it is ODI or ListA or Twenty20; then it is a notable fixture and everyone in it is a notable player. Mr Hughes is not (yet) a notable player, in my opinion, but it does seem harsh as he is obviously a good player. --BlackJack | talk page 22:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Had he captained Australia in the Under-19 Word Cup, or scored the highest ever score in an Under-19 international then you could make a case for notability. For this however, you can't. Andrew nixon 09:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

USA World Cup?

Has the US ever qualified for the World Cup? I was under the impression that they hadn't, but some has changed United States national cricket team twice to say that they made it in 2003. I thought I'd check here before getting too worked up about it. Thanks.--Eva bd 01:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No. The only ICC tournament that they qualified for was the 2004 ICC Champions Trophy =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks!--Eva bd 14:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cricketers killed in War

Is there an article about the cricketers killed in the First and Second world wars - and others? There's enough to make a good article - Percy Jeeves, Major Booth, Tibby Cotter, Hedley Verity etc - plus Frank Chester losing an arm of course. I'll do one tomorrow if no-one objects. Nick mallory 05:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's up to you, but I would imagine such a list would get deleted. After all, you could make a list of any collection of people who were killed in any major war. We all know lots of people of all types were killed in the First World War. What's special about cricketers to suggest they would deserve such a list? It reminds me of Causes of death of England national cricket captains, which had a pretty clear consensus to delete it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Stephen, I still think it's an interesting idea though, especially with the number killed in the first world war. If I can be bothered I'll give it a go, trying to emphasise the end of the golden age and lost generation bit. If I chuck in enough links and references and avoid the word 'list' I think I can do something which will pass muster. It strikes me that it's an angle worth looking at, it's something which someone might search wikipedia for, and has more purpose than just listing what all the captains died of. I think there's an attitude on wikipedia, dominated as it is by 22 year old American liberal arts students, which holds minor cartoon characters as more important than war heroes and it sticks in my craw sometimes. Nick mallory 10:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have List of cricketers who were murdered (we could add the only Test cricketer to have been excecuted for murder...) I can't easily find such a list online. If it can be made into an article, it could fit into our history of cricket series: "Cricket during the World Wars" or similar.
According to this, "During the First World War 210 county cricketers served in the armed forces. Of these, 34 were killed." It menions Percy Jeeves, killed at the Somme in July 1916, and Colin Blythe, killed at Passchendaele in November 1917. I think those statistics must be for English county cricketers - see this which has lots of good images - "Over 200 county cricketers served in the Army. Of these, 34 were killed in action." - which also mentions Blythe, Major William Booth, also killed on the Somme, and Australian Albert Cotter, killed in Palestine in 1917. It also mentions Hedley Verity, killed in Sicily in July 1943. And this mentions New Zealander GCL Wilson. A good quiz question would be to name the only first-class cricketer to win the Victoria Cross... I guess AEJ Collins ought to get an honourable mention too.
Bearders reckons that only 5 English Test cricketers died in the Second World War - Ken Farnes, Geoffrey Legge, George Macaulay, Maurice Turnbull, and Verity. And this one mentions 7 Test cricketers who died in the First World War - Leonard Moon, Blythe, Booth and Kenneth Hutchings (all English), Cotter (Australian), and Reginald Hands and Bill Lundie (both South African) - and 6 in the Second - Turnbull, Legge, Ross Gregory (Australian) Denis Moloney (New Zealand) and Arthur Briscoe (South African). Presumably there are also several first-class Englishmen, Indians, (West Indians?), Australians, South Africans and New Zealanders...
Is there an easy way to find them, looking at 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 death categories, intersecting with cricket categories, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the suggestions, it's very useful info. As it seems to fit into the history of cricket section you already have I'll have a go at in tomorrow. I'd welcome anyone having a look at it and improving it of course when I'm done. Making it into 'cricket during the world wars' is a good idea as it gets around the useless list problem and allows me to use a bit of other stuff i've found out about that period. Nick mallory 08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For English players, places to add the information on deaths of players might be the articles 1915 to 1918 English cricket seasons and 1940 to 1945 English cricket seasons. JH (talk page) 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've done a piece on Cricket in the Great War. It covers a wider range than the 1915 to 1918 English cricket seasons so I don't think there's too much duplication there. There's info from various things which happened around the world and I don't think you could say these men died in an english cricket season, they died in the Great War. It was getting rather long so I might do the Second World War in another section. If anyone has any additions or suggestions then feel free to pitch in. It's linked to the cricket history section. Nick mallory 05:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done Cricket in World War Two now as well. Nick mallory 08:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

From the WW1 article: "Plum Warner, captain of England in the first English Test Match in 1880, took part in a match between his own invitation XI and the Public Schools at the age of 67, scoring 11 before being run out." Should "Plum Warner" read "Lord Harris"? JH (talk page) 09:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably, I'll look it up JH. Thanks for the tips ALoan by the way, they were very useful. Nick mallory 09:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was Lord Harris playing for Plum Warner's XI. I'll change it. Thanks for the heads up. Nick mallory 09:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I created 1915 to 1918 English cricket seasons and 1940 to 1945 English cricket seasons, plus similar articles re other countries during the war years. The scope of these articles is to record what happened in each country to keep the game going and so any international and first-class cricket played during the wars is within that scope. Nick's articles are much broader in scope as they must describe the experiences of cricketers from all countries, although they seem to be anglo-concentric at present. --BlackJack | talk page 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The main focus of my articles is the cricketers who died in each war, as I think that's something worth remembering and something people would search for, garnished with some of my usual interesting facts and a sprinkle of overview to overcome any objections that 'it's just a random list' re Stephen's warning above. They don't attempt to duplicate Blackjack's efforts to properly document the matches played in each season in each country so, like Blackjack says, there's no reason we can't have both. You might like to check out your section for England 1943, Blackjack, for a bit of vandalism someone left there by the way. Deaths from all countries are covered in as much detail as i have without just repeating player's records too much. As England was the country where cricket was most affected by the war it gets most of the coverage as the articles are about the wars' effect on cricket. The articles are pretty long already so any extra stuff about matches played should go into Blackjack's articles rather than these two, in my opinion. Nick mallory 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Use the wartime season articles for matches, admin and general events within the game itself; use the cricket in wartime articles for the impact on the players and their families. Even so, there's bound to be a bit of overlap.
As for the 1943 vandal, I smacked him in the gob and he woke up in 1973. He is assisting DCI Hunt with his enquiries. --BlackJack | talk page 13:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sound good to me Blackjack. Nick mallory 02:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Destubbing miniproject

To save doubling up and to keep a track of progress, I started a new page linked above. Please join in the fun. —Moondyne 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a note there saying I'm happy to help in a few days time Moondyne. Give me a category and i'll do it. Nick mallory 02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ranjit Fernando Vandal/Stalker

A guy named 12345ak has for the last 24 to 48 hrs been vandalising this page non stop, adding rubbish in and providing a link to his Ranjit Fernando hate site. Due to his frustration at me constantly getting rid of his vandalism he has sent me numerous threatening messages on my talk page. This morning I woke up to find that my last 30 odd contributions in this place has been reverted by this user and was greeted with another message implying that he would keep doing so until I stopped reverting his Ranjit Fernando vandalism. What is the best way of dealing with this? I think for a start the page in question should be protected but due to this guy reverting so many of my posts he may have enough to qualify past semi protection. All the evidence is in this users history so if a mod could block this guy he or she would be doing me a big favour because I am not too keen on waking up every morning and seeing that 30 of my fair and genuine contributions have been tampered with. —Crickettragic

I would report this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for quicker attention. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing Stalled? discussion is at WP:ANI. --Iamunknown 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What about a horse's head in his bed? I added some words in your support at the page. Seriously, wouldn't that kind of disruptive action get him banned straight away for good? I think when they see what's been going on that will happen. Nick mallory 02:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
He's back again under the alias Lankanboy84. I'm not touching it this time, just notifying everyone. Crickettragic 11:47, 23 April 2007

JB King FP?

In my continued quest to make Wikipedia a great resource for American cricket history, I've nominated this image of John Barton King as a featured picture. If anyone would like to make their voice heard on the issue, that can be done here. Thanks.--Eva bd 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I put my vote in, you're doing a lot of great work there Eva. Nick mallory 02:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cricket biography stubs

Did you know there are 3,682 of these things?

For illustration, I've decomposed the total as follows:

category number comments
Cricket biography stubs 290 mostly from ICC associate and affiliate countries
Australian cricket biography stubs 462 .
Bangladeshi cricket biography stubs 84 .
Canadian cricket biography stubs 74 .
English cricket biography stubs 657 .
English international cricketer stubs 355 including many that are also in the previous category
Indian cricket biography stubs 238 .
Irish cricket biography stubs 162 .
New Zealand cricket biography stubs 301 .
Pakistani cricket biography stubs 209 .
South African cricket biography stubs 345 .
Sri Lankan cricket biography stubs 138 .
West Indian cricket biography stubs 280 .
Zimbabwean cricket biography stubs 87 .
TOTAL 3,682 .

This is very much an upward trend as there is surely a huge number of players from all countries who are still without articles. 19th century English players alone could be several hundred. Has anyone got any ideas about a concerted project approach towards improving substantial numbers of these articles up to start level at least so that they can be de-stubbed? --BlackJack | talk page 10:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that there are a fair number of those - maybe 10-20% - that are flagged as stubs when they needn't be. Sometimes someone expands what was originally a very short article, but lacks the confidence to remove the stub status. Also some marginally notable cricketers don't merit any more than a paragraph or two, IMO, and are flagged as stubs unnecessarily. JH (talk page) 15:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
JH makes a very good point. As a generalisation, players who have only played in a handful of first-class matches goes will only need a 2 or 3 paragraphs. As long as they're well-written they should be elevated to Start-class. Look at A. P. Williams (an umpire, first article I randomly opened from category:Australian cricket biography stubs), for example. Notable certainly, but what more could you reasonably write about his cricket credentials and remain encyclopaedic? Cricinfo doesn't have a biog at all. So, in answer to Jack's question about ideas, perhaps a program of untagging some of the stub-tagged articles first. —Moondyne 01:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could all nominate a country and start going through their player pagers and removing stub status for those worthy. I've started looking at Zimbabwe and already found 17 articles listed as stubs which were not. (Crickettragic)

I think Moondyne is right. We need to do a de-stubbing exercise first and then see what's left. I also agree with Crickettragic that the best thing to do is "claim a pitch" as it were and work that but we need people to say on here what they are working on. As it happens, I want to do some more work on early English cricket so as part of that I'll cover off all English players up to the middle of the 19th century. --BlackJack | talk page 13:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd happily to the next "tranche" of English players, chronologically speaking, say up to the end of the 19th century. By "up to the middle of the 19th century" do you mean their date of birth, which is the easiest thing to see at a glance and so what I'd prefer, or the end of their playing career? I will delete the stub template and, where there isn't one already, add a WP Cricket template to the Talk page. Should that have its class left blank or should I put it to Start? JH (talk page) 14:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question and sorry for being ambiguous. What I have in mind is to cover all players who were active up to 1863, the last season before overarm was legalised. So, any player whose debut occurred during the underarm and roundarm eras. Most of the 18th century players are already de-stubbed because there is so little information about them that a complete article tends to be short, but I'll double-check them all as I work through.
Re the rating, I would use start as a default and B if it is quite a well-developed article. You might find some that warrant an A if they are very well presented and are near enough complete: it's your call, really. --BlackJack | talk page 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed stubs in the past that aren't stubs. Could cricket bot be set to trawl cricket stubs and de-stub articles above a certain size? --Dweller 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a judgement call though isn't it? A hundred words on some obscure Victorian gentleman who played one match for Sussex might be all there is to know. If you had a hundred words on Ted Dexter, it would be the stubbiest of stubs. Nick mallory 10:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It could make a list of articles marked as stubs, sorted by size. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea. We can then look through the longest of them and hopefully destub some. --Dweller 11:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What about this list? [2] Is this one up to date?

Horace Brearley

Looking at this article on Mike's father, it contains a fair amount of information, but almost none of it can be verified against the sources given. In particular, a comment that a person has Alzheimer's disease strikes me as something that really does need solid referencing. Can anyone help with that? Also, he's only a couple of months short of his 94th birthday. How does he stand with regard to the list of oldest living (English/overall) first-class cricketers? Loganberry (Talk) 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've not heard of any first-class player making it to the biggest century of all. Not even the Don quite managed that one. The oldest player I know of is Billy Beldam who was just past his 96th birthday when he died in the 1860s. --BlackJack | talk page 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There are a few centurions Tintin 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just added a stub (a real one! It needs expansion) for Jim Hutchinson, the longest-lived cricketer of all. Loganberry (Talk) 11:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
And Eric Tindill is currently the oldest living Test player. Johnlp 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You just beat me to it! Ted English of Hampshire made it to 102 years old. Born January 1, 1864, Dorking, Surrey - Died September 5, 1966, Higher Ball Farm, Tiverton, Devon (aged 102 years 247 days). Nick mallory 07:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

County cricket

Sorry to put in another "hey, why don't we do something about this?" rather than actually doing that something! But... for a long time now, county cricket has simply been a redirect to County Championship. This doesn't really strike me as very satisfactory, particularly when considering a) the days before the CC was established and b) recent years when one-day county cricket has become ever more important. I think we should have a separate "county cricket" article, with the CC itself a "see main article" from there. Loganberry (Talk) 12:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I doubt whether I'll have the time to make a major contribution to the proposed article myself. JH (talk page) 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've created an article to go there. At the moment it's very much a summary of current county cricket. Please take a look and suggest/make improvements. It could also do with a history section, if someone could chip in with that. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

An excellent start. One other thing that you might mention is fixtures against touring teams. JH (talk page) 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed RfA

Hi all. I am planning to nom User:The Rambling Man for adminship. My nascent nomination can be seen at User:Dweller/sandbox. As well as all of his other multifarious qualities and contributions, The Rambling Man has done a lot of quality work on cricket articles, including considerable input into three cricket FAs, notably Adam Gilchrist which he did most of the work on (check the article history).

Now, as you're probably aware, Kelly Martin has made a WikiProject nom a criterion for her support. I'm not too bothered about one !vote here or there, but I think it's a great idea to have a WikiProject endorsement of nomination, as it is a terrific way to demonstrate to other editors that there is a measure of trust and respect among a group of active editors.

I would be grateful for your comments as to whether you think that The Rambling Man's nomination deserves the endorsement of this WikiProject.

This is not a vote or a !vote, but an effort to find consensus.

Thanks! --Dweller 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe TRMan is trustworthy and would support the endorsement of the WikiProject. --Dweller 15:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether he would or would not make a good admin, but I think the concept of a WikiProject endorsing someone is a strange one. I think a WikiProject should be merely a meeting and discussion place for editors working in a specific subject area, and should not be regarded as a body in its own right. I would therefore oppose this endorsement, regardless of the merits of the candidate. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, but not entirely unexpected opposition! However, the WikiProject does act as an entity, for example, when we establish guidelines for cricket articles and grade articles' importance/quality, so this is not completely peculiar. Further, what harm do you perceive this doing? --Dweller 15:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
To my mind, establishing consensus for cricket articles in order to make them more uniform is in a very different category from endorsing or opposing admins as a group. The former is helpful for making a better encyclopaedia; the latter is imposing an authority on the WikiProject which is outside its purpose. I think that the more power (de facto even if not de jure) that is given to small groups of editors, the more danger there is of cliques and groupthink. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with Cliques?--THUGCHILDz 02:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support him. He did a lot helpful and nice of work on the cricketers' articles and put a lot of effort in them in the recent FA push. I Wikiproject endorsements are fine. If the consensus of the project is in support then I think an endorsement should be done, noting how many members we have in the project and that the consensus of the current active member is to endorse the RFA. Anyways, even if we don't do that can you give a link where the RFA is, Dweller?--THUGCHILDz 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I previously opposed the idea of WikiProject endorsements for RfA but just a couple of hours ago heard Jimbo and others discussing this issue at our meetup and I have changed my thoughts on the matter. One problem with the RfA process is the amount of drive-by support and opposes without any real knowledge of an candidate's credentials. If you don't know the candidate well and haven't directly interacted with him the reality is that you make a cursory glance at his user and user talk pages as well as some of his recent contributions. You may also be guided by what other !voters have to say (and they may be just piling on as well). Who better to give meaningful feedback that the community in which the candidate interacts on a day to day basis? Adminship is not a big deal and IMO we need many more than we currently have to deal with vandalism, linkspam, BLP issues etc etc. My 2cents. —Moondyne 03:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Those were valuable 2 cents we got there. And yeah, I agree.--THUGCHILDz 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On reflection

I think this conversation needs to develop more and I'm uncomfortable rushing it before it's done. My co-nom for TRM is also uncomfortable; in his case, with the concept. All in all therefore, I'm going to nominate without the WikiProject as a co-nom on this occasion. However, I think it would be useful, particularly in light of Moondyne's comments above, if we continued discussing. Cheers, --Dweller 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Moondyne's comments made me understand better what problem this is trying to solve, but I'm still not convinced it's the right solution. I would like it to be mentioned here when one of our regulars is up for adminship, and I think it would be good for the rest of us to comment on the nomination with specific knowledge based on our personal experience. Maybe we could even be invited to co-nominate as individuals — is that possible? I think the actual problem is that RfAs are really just votes, with little if any weight given to how well the voter knows the candidate; but I'm not sure how to fix that. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning a new RfA here has certainly been done in the past but we need to be mindful of WP:CANVASS and that some RfA's have derailed or been damaged over that. A notice here needs to be very neutral and do no more that alert participants to the RfA with a link. —Moondyne 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Is it regarded as better if someone other than the candidate does it? Is it acceptable for the nominator to do it? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Who knows? I would say a third party would be the ideal. —Moondyne 12:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:CANVASS#Friendly notice: It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, and absolutely unacceptable if they have asked you to stop. Since there was a request above, and since the editors here can provide valuable personal knowledge of the nominee in the RfA itself, I think it would be a constructive rather than disruptive action to post a brief notice here, as per WP:CANVASS#Friendly notice. Thugchild (does your nym refer to a thug who is a child, or the child of a thug? ) above requested the location of the RfA, and it is located at User:Dweller/sandbox for those who are interested in personally co-nominating. FYI,  The Transhumanist    17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm that's an unexpected question but it's chill, well i would say child of a thug and the thug being the world but this isn't supposed to be taken in a negative way or anything. I don't have a negative perception of the world or anything but just that it's a tough world and you gotta do what you gotta do. Anyways about the subject, does any other project endorse their members? If not, I would still think that would be a good idea but if we decide not to, then I agree that we should at least get a notice on the project that a member is running for RFA--THUGCHILDz 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

FA push

Things seem to have slackened off a little. Is the West Indian cricket team still aiming for FAC any time soon? Indian cricket team is perhaps the best article on a Test team - is anyone thinking of polishing it further? And should bwe pick a player to concentrate on next? Inzamam-ul-Haq perhaps? And didn't Muttiah Muralitharan say that he would retire after the 2007 World Cup? Did he change his mind?

Are we going to try to get Adam Gilchrist on the Main Page for the final of the World Cup? I guess Harbhajan Singh and Paul Collingwood are off the table for the time being, unless we fancy giving them 27th and 31st birthday presents on 3 July and 26 May respectively? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there any other FA left other than players that we could put up for the final on the main page? If not, I guess Adam Gilchrist would be a good choice if they make it to the final. For the other two I think we should fancy their birthdays because their info will be little out of date later.--THUGCHILDz 17:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Murali always said he was going to play for a while. I think, just lodge a request for Gilchrist and tell Raul to scupper it if they lose ot RSA< which I doubt. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Brian Lara? One of the greatest batsmen of all time has just retired. It's amazing the bad press he's got, he's carried them single handed for a decade. Nick mallory 08:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Lara would be good. Shall we start? :) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of doing Lara. I tried making a start on it some time ago (it's horribly bloated, and the charts are very out of date) but the main stumbling block for FA will be photos, IMHO. I was planning on getting onto Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) once my current FAC for Norwich City F.C. is over... on the basis that once that goes FA, it'll be a useful argument when the next bozo tries to move Bill O'Reilly (commentator) over the disambig page at Bill O'Reilly on the basis Gee, no-one's heard of the cricket guy. You cannot be serious or whatever. --Dweller 14:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Paul Collingwood is in the queue for Main Page FA on his birthday and the West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 is due for the first day of the 1st Test v England, both in May. --Dweller 10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Miller (cricketer)

I wanted to propose this as an AfD, as he doesn't seem to meet our criteria for notability. However the procedure for doing so seems rather complex, and I think I screwed up, so perhaps someone who understands these things could take it over? JH (talk page) 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. It isn't that complex, if you just follow the instructions on WP:AFD page. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 19:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. JH (talk page) 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just followed those instructions for Ashley Potter, so hopefully I've managed to produce a valid AfD proposal for him. JH (talk page) 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
AfD here, if anyone is interested. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cricket Umpires

Currently trying to go through large amounts of articles and add {{WP Cricket}} to their talk pages. This post in the archives along with this one are particularly useful but there's no clarification as to what importance umpires have.

I'd recommending Elite Panel umpires as mid-high (depending on how many games they have officiated), then those on the International Panel of Umpires as low (bar any particularly special events related to them, not that I can think of any examples). Thoughts? AllynJ 23:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Currently trying to go through large amounts of articles and add {{WP Cricket}} to their talk pages." I've been doing that too, as part of my work on the destubbing exercise. As for umpires, my own feeling is that rating one as high would be exceptional. The umpires are - or should be - less important than the players. Of past umpires, Jim Phillips, Frank Chester and Syd Buller might possibly qualify for a "high" rating. JH (talk page) 09:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Dickie Bird? (gosh, I never knew he scored 181* in first-class cricket)? David Shepherd (umpire)? (needs a proper cricket infobox, incidentally) Shakoor Rana? :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Member RfA

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Rambling Man. Whichever way you choose to !vote, I would be glad if you would indicate your membership of this WikiProject. --Dweller 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Adil Rashid

What's the betting on Rashid winning a Test cap by the end of next summer? It's worth keeping an eye on his article for hagiography... it's already beginning to seep in. --Dweller 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's often a particular problem with young, exciting cricketers in that just about everything they do is added to the article. Billy Godleman is in danger of going that way, too. Loganberry (Talk) 22:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You think? It doesn't mention what he likes for breakfast yet :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Lancastrian batsmen! lol --Dweller 15:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Northants bowlers, at the moment! He is poised overnight to come in next wicket down in Middlesex's second innings.[3] -- ALoan (Talk) 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Godleman

Godleman has just made his fifth consecutive 50 from debut in first class cricket (now 50* v Derbyshire - no mean feat, he came in at 97-4, so not exactly an easy wicket to bat on / poor bowling). Does anyone know what the record is for consecutive 50s from debut? --Dweller 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested, I can't track down the record, but Godleman fell just a few runs short of his sixth 50 in a row from debut. Suggestions on how to find the record welcome. --Dweller 14:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

West Indies article, Middlesex article

Some things need to be updated, like Lara's retirement and the current squad needs to be updated, I can't do it at the moment, sorry! and the Middlesex article needs a "current squad" section Speedboy Salesman 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cricketers called for throwing

Would this be a worthwhile category? —Moondyne 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean? No-balled once? Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought a mention of the notable culprits wherever the definition of throwing is would suffice. –MDCollins (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Called for throwing" means no-balled one to my ears. Once it's been defined as no-balled in a first-class/List A or higher match or something vaguer such as notably no-balled, I think it would be interesting. I can't see any article on throwing describing all the interesting incidents. Of course there is then the question of whether it is worth having a more general category including those reported under the modern scheme, but I think that is a different question. JPD (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There's also players who have been reported to the ICC because of official concerns about their bowling actions but never called in a match nor received sanctions. List of international cricketers called for throwing. So perhaps it needs a broader name. I'm open to suggestions. —Moondyne 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put a few more names in List of international cricketers called for throwing of Test players called in any first-class match. I'll try to make it into a table at some stage. Unless someone else gets there first. Johnlp 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What about cricketers who were no balled for bowling overarm when only round arm bowling was allowed? I remember an incident when I was doing the Yorkshire player list, when the captain led his team off the field over the incident. This is an interesting article about the development of the law and the biomechanics of it. [4] Nick mallory 05:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of that is already fairly well covered in Overarm bowling, so including a link to that article might be a good start. In fact it might be better if any additional material went in that article. JH (talk page) 08:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Overcategorisation

I was perusing wicket-keeping (blame today's FA), and found we have a category called Category: cricket skills (or something like that). For some reason, it has seven single-article subcategories. I would suggest these articles get categorised as cricket articles, and as cricket skills article. I don't think it helps much to say "Wicket-keeping" is within a category of articles about wicket-keeping. Not even wicket-keepers fit in there. 60.226.133.172 12:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The batting, bowling, fielding and captaincy categories each have several articles. There is a sub-category for individual wicketkeepers which is already in the wicketkeeping category (the same applies to all rounders). The skills category is useful and has potential. I note that the "suggestion", which doesn't make much sense in parts, has come from an unregistered user. --GeorgeWilliams 12:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WC ITN

What are going to put in the news for the day of the final? Is it going to be something like the cricket world cup final is currently be playing between Sri Lanka and South Africa and than changed to the winner of the cricket world cup is South Africa. The man of the tournament is Mr. bla bla. Or are we going to wait till we have a winner? Also can we get someone to write a quick paragraph for the final right after it ends?--THUGCHILDz 06:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure on the how to handle it front but I've been writing a small amount for Wikinews for various games, if I'm reporting on the final too feel free to use my text/adapt it/whatever you like.
On a similar note, as I've said I've written some for other games, reckon it's worth adapting and including it? For example the RSA vs England game was a pretty huge game in the tournament which I've got some stuff written on, might it be worth it? AllynJ 07:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's up to the WP:ITN people, but I imagine they'd prefer to wait and announce the winner. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Blnguyen's advert will be useful for finding a usable photo for a prominent player from the winning team. --Dweller 10:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well for the picture, can't we just use this-?--THUGCHILDz 04:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
We could go with that or this picture of the captains of the tournament --THUGCHILDz 08:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are they really free usage images? Wow. --Dweller 08:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, just had to look through like 250 pages of pictures in flickr, no big ;)--THUGCHILDz 09:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin put one of the pictures in, in the ITN?--THUGCHILDz 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Important biographies"

Since the concept of FAs for important people was brought up, I noted that Australian Cricket Hall of Fame, Wisden Cricketers of the Century and ESPN Legends of Cricket might give a useful idicator. Granted, ESPN might be taken as a joke for some, but it is a useful rough guide anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

THe ESPN top fifty isn't too bad. Didn't Don Bradman pick a best ever XI? He knew a thing or two I'm told. Nick mallory 10:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All Time World XI

1. Arthur Morris 2. Barry Richards 3. Don Bradman 4. Sachin Tendulkar 5. Garry Sobers 6. Don Tallon (revised to include Adam Gilchrist) 7. Ray Lindwall 8. Dennis Lillee 9. Alec Bedser 10. Bill O'Reilly 11. Clarie Grimmett 12th man. Wally Hammond

Australia 1. Arthur Morris 2. Bill Ponsford 3. Don Bradman 4. Neil Harvey 5. Charlie Macartney 6. Keith Miller 7. Don Tallon (revised to include Adam Gilchrist) 8. Ray Lindwall 9. Dennis Lillee 10. Bill O'Reilly 11. Clarrie Grimmett 12. Richie Benaud

England 1. Jack Hobbs 2. Len Hutton 3. Denis Compton 4. Peter May 5. Wally Hammond 6. WG Grace 7. Godfrey Evans 8. Fred Trueman 9. Alec Bedser 10. SF Barnes 11. Hedley Verity 12. Ian Botham

Whether it was a Donald Bradman XI or Roland Perry XI is a matter of dispute. Tintin 10:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That's true. Nick mallory 08:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Key biographies. Wondering if any other countries had halls of fame, etc, to add to it. It might be a useful thing to keep track of. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with lists and halls of fame is that they're always biased to the present. Maybe the top 10 run scorers and wicket takers in history should be in, if they're not already - people like Frank Woolley, Patsy Hendren, Tom Hayward, Tich Freeman Jack Hearne etc. Trumper and Ranji as well just for sheer style. Nick mallory 08:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Acutally, most halls of fame run by countries etc, are usually staffed by the traditionalists and retired players over 70 years old, well at the least the Australian one is, it heavily takes into account the classicists, stylists and innovators, rather than just the modern era sloggers and bashers with their superbats which enable lots of mishits to go for 6 anyway. Of Australia's 27, I only see Border, Lillee, Marsh, Simpson, Chappell and Chappell are post 1965. It has a very healthy amount of pre 1930s innovators like Trumper and Spofforth. I wonder if there is an equivalent for England, since we need to identify the Bosanquets, and similar English stylists and classicists and innovators. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Blnguyen. That should be very useful. It makes it clear how much work there is to do. Having read the Herbert Sutcliffe article, I'm not too surprised to see that the other articles about Yorkshire players also suffer from hagiography. :) JH (talk page) 08:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the most over the top stuff in the Sutcliffe biography, that was there before! Nick mallory 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is Richie Benaud's Greatest XI, chosen by one of the most respected commentators in the world. GizzaChat © 09:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick Mallory sums up the whole concept perfectly with the words "always biased to the present". Quite right and especially where several over-rated recent England players are concerned. To do this properly, you must first accept that you cannot put a limit on the number of great players and that there have always been great players. Thomas Waymark and Richard Newland were just as great as Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist. The only great players who have been more than great are WG Grace and Don Bradman. You can put those two on a pedestal and otherwise you have a long chronological list that begins with William Bedle and ends with Glenn McGrath or Brian Lara, who are the two latest retirees among the great players. --GeorgeWilliams 07:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)