Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Test matches in rugby

As things stand, Test match redirects to Test cricket. However, writing my little article about Alan Walker just now, it occurred to me that rugby (both codes) also uses the term "Test" in the same way, and so I couldn't think of where to link the mention of Walker's five rugby Tests. What, if anything, should be done about that? Loganberry (Talk) 14:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest making a disambig page and then start redirecting all the links that go to "Test match". If there's a WikiProject Rugby started at some point, they're probably gonna be a bit peeved. Not to mention that there are Test matches in motorcycle speedway, too. Sam Vimes 14:30-ish, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are tests in Field Hockey too =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, though, is the precise phrase Test match (rather than just "Test") overwhelmingly, or only largely, associated with cricket? The articles listed as linking to Test match are indeed overwhelmingly cricket related. The reason I ask this specific question is that there is the possibility of doing what articles such as BBC do, and having a redirect and a disambig page. In other words, at the top of the Test cricket page we would add something along the lines of:
Test match redirects here. For other uses, see Test match (disambiguation).
Incidentally, Test already exists as a disambiguation page. It doesn't currently mention any sport but cricket, but could easily be edited to do so. Loganberry (Talk) 17:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since there are an overwhelming no. of redirs to TM Cricket, I think {{redirect}} should be used. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Now done. The Test match (disambiguation) page could do with attention from those who know the other sports, but at least it's there now. Loganberry (Talk) 18:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now undone again by Vegaswikian, who says in the edit summary, "Merged in text from Test match (disambiguation) since page [should] not be a redirect with so many other uses. old redirect points here". Hey-ho; since my change lasted about ten minutes, I'm going to leave this up to other people now. I still think it was the right solution, but I'd rather compromise than get into a revert war with someone. Loganberry (Talk) 18:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It appears Vegaswikian is attempting to rename all the links from [[Test match]] to [[Test cricket|Test match]]. Might be the best solution in the long run? Sam Vimes 19:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That would certainly work, and I'd be quite happy with that. I'll also try to remember to use that format when editing from now on. Loganberry (Talk) 22:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland cricket

Was Ireland given ODI status [1]? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

No. The WI match wasn't even List A. See http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/misc/1/misc1267.html (the 'misc' in the file name indicates that it isn't first class ('f') or List A ('a') ) Tintin 07:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the statistics box

I've added the international statistics box to the Viv Richards article. Cricinfo gives number of balls bowled rather than number of overs, and I couldn't get the box to accept this, so I had to divide the totals by six. Is that what I was expected to do? I'm not very happy with this. 600 balls hardly ever equals 100 overs, as there are usually some wides or no-balls. I haven't thought about this before, but it makes me wonder how sources that show overs bowled, such as Playfair, calculate the totals. Do they add up the number of overs in each innings, effectively ignoring wides and no-balls, or do they divide the number of balls bowled by six? It isn't clear. I would like to see the statistics box changed to follow the same practice as cricinfo. Calsicol 19:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. That will have to do for the moment. In the long term, I guess we can put in an argument to sort that out. I think Template:Infobox pope has a good example. smoddy 19:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've tested a few and the answer is that they divide by six. Would it not be better to show economy rates instead? I'm statistically minded and I don't find total overs or balls bowled very meaningful. Perhaps it would be more useful to show economy rates, which are available from cricinfo even for early international cricketers. Calsicol 19:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think showing overs/balls is more obvious to the non-versed reader. It wouldn't be difficult to implement, so I shall have a look at the idea of the argument version. I am slightly distracted currently by events in Durham... smoddy 19:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do I hear the sound of wheels falling off...? And Timmo out too. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Never has so much been expected by so many of so few... smoddy 19:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bit late for that now... -- ALoan (Talk) 20:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Get that man up the order... smoddy 21:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since you guys evidently followed the match with great interest, would you mind writing a match report? :-) Sam Vimes 11:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Back on topic, before {{Infobox Historic Cricketer}} (which uses balls instead of overs - but has first class instead of ODIs) was made I did it the slow way and looked at the full list of matches they played and their bowling statistics for all of them. (eg Viv richards here: [2] ) it has the number of overs bowled in every innings, and the corresponding number of balls per over at that time. so i added them all up (for each 6 bpo and 8 bpo) and where there were not an exact number of overs, i added extra ones corresponding to the number of bpo at the time, then added the two together. eg he bowls (90.9 at 6bpo + 10.20 at 8 bpo = 91.3 + 12.4 = 103.7 = 103.1 (standardised for 6 bpo for no specific reason)). it takes a while, i'm sure someone can think of a better way... and meanwhile, we were bound to beat you eventually! AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In we normalise to 6 bpo, it may mess up the figures of bowlers from the 4 bpo and 5 bpo days. If someone had only one over in his career during the 4 bpo era, that will become 0.4 overs here - which isn't really true.
>> I think showing overs/balls is more obvious to the non-versed reader.
CI and CA both go for number of balls. So we may as well Tintin 01:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What does Wisden Cricketers' Almanack quote, balls or overs? (Given that they own it, I guess they may well do the same as cricinfo.) FWIW, I would rather see 6-ball overs quoted for the modern period, after 6-ball overs became standard, but balls for earlier periods. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What about players whose careers covered the "8-ball era" but never actually played under it? Norman Gifford is an example. Given that all his Tests were 6-ball games, and that he also played two ODIs late in his career, I've used the modern Infobox for him, but that does mean that a later player who started in the last days of 8-ball Tests would use the older Infobox. I don't think that's a huge problem, but it can be altered if others disagree. There's also the related problem of what to do about cricketers who played both 8-ball Tests and ODIs. Loganberry (Talk) 12:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to find a technical solution at User:Smoddy/Alec Stewart, an article I'm writing long-term. It uses the same system as the pope infobox. It would require the adding of this line to every article that uses overs:
balls/overs = overs |
test balls = 0 |
ODI balls = 0 |
Those that use balls need this added:
balls/overs = balls |
test overs = 0 |
ODI overs = 0 |
Obviously with the correct numbers of balls and overs put in where necessary. smoddy 13:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nice solution, smoddy. I didn't know you could construct recursive infoboxes. Stephen Turner 13:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They can go around, and around, and around, and around, and... you get the picture. It would require some work before we can start, but I'm ready to put in the yards. Does this seem a sensible solution? There is a short term solution that, with my system, not having a balls/overs line in at all results in no line for either. So, during the updating process, non-updated articles will display nothing, while updated articles will show correctly. smoddy 13:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sounds fine, though I have two questions. Firstly, there's still the question of whether an article writer should choose overs or balls for a new article for someone like Gifford, Botham etc. (Of course they both exist already, but you get the picture.) Secondly, what should we do when writing articles in the meantime - continue with the current system, presumably? Loganberry (Talk) 23:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I definitely like smoddy's solution, as I said before.
In answer to Loganberry, I personally prefer overs unless the cricketer concerned has bowled any non-six-ball overs. (The alternative would be to standardise on balls for everyone, in which case we wouldn't need smoddy's solution).
Stephen Turner 08:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think we are safe to follow Cricinfo's lead on this one. They only put balls where there have been non-six ball overs bowled. So I agree with Stephen there. As to Loganberry's technical question: just stick in the formatting I have above – it will reduce work if and when we come to use the new version. smoddy 09:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the formatting answers, but here comes another silly question from me, I'm afraid. Does it matter where in the Infobox the "balls/overs =" line goes? I've just put the line in for one player (that well-known Test strike bowler Patsy Hendren...) so far, and placed it immediately before the "test balls =" line since it's noticeable there. Will that work okay? Loganberry (Talk) 15:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The international cricket infobox has 5 WIs for Tests and ODIs. The first class cricket box has 5 WI for first class and 4 WI for List A (See Ravi Shastri for eg). Shouldn't these two have the same format ? Tintin 14:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The Studd Brothers

I am just starting a piece on the three famous Studd brothers - can anyone help? The draft article is currently on my sub page The Studd Brothers -it is very raw at present - so don't jump on it too hard ! A curate's egg 17:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have put the Wisden obituary of JEK Studd and the extract from CMJ's Who's who (the typos are because of the scanner) at [3]. I have a copy of "CT Studd : Cricketer and Pioneer" (can't remember the author), but I haven't read it myself and don't have access to it till after a couple of weeks. At that point, if I can be of any help, please let me know. Tintin 18:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Btw, Wisden has obits of AH, CT, EJC, GB, JEK, and RA Studd. Do you want any others ? Tintin 18:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tintin you're a star - I'll work through this lot and see where that brings us! :) A curate's egg 28 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Articles now done:

Please edit and alter as necessary! :) A curate's egg 29 June 2005 07:37 (UTC)

[edit] Wisden Obituaries

I have 'Wisden Book of Cricketers' Lives', which is a collection of Wisden obituaries till 1984. If I can be of any help with cricketers' whose obituaries are not available in the Cricinfo player pages, please drop me a word here Tintin 18:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Collaboration of the Fortnight

I'd just like to remind people of the Collaboration of the Fortnight. The first COTF, The Ashes, went very well, and it's since become a featured article. But the second COTF, Laws of cricket, was a bit of a flop. The new COTF is History of Test cricket (1890 to 1900) — come along and make it better! Stephen Turner 02:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks good to me. 'fraid I don't have any knowledge on cricket history. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Review Request - Ravi Shastri

I have made an attempt documenting the career of Ravi Shastri. Please edit and enhance it, and feel free to cricticise. The section about his time in Glamorgan has been left out for the time being, mainly because I know nothing about it.

Thanks, Tintin 06:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simple cricket

I have recently undertaken the task of getting the cricket page translated in other languages. While we have a great featured article here, our sister concern, simple:cricket is just a stub. Since many do use the simple edition for translation, does any one want to volunteer to write a simple version of the current cricket text? I'll try and simplify what I can, but my edits always needs a copyedit.=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Warne

I noticed that the article on Shane Warne needs some help. It is very unbalanced at the moment — it has plenty on his scandals, but a derisory amount on his career. I've at least tidied it up a bit, but unfortunately I haven't got time to write the necessary new material at the moment. Anyone fancy having a go? Stephen Turner 09:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use

This is a newbie question. I must have been discussed here before, in which case please point me to the appropriate thread.

Some articles use photos from BBC under fair use policy. Since Cricinfo pictures are never used, I guess that their usage is not fair. Why is it so ? Using a picture from Cricinfo doesn't seem to violate the four rules mentioned in Fair use

Now, if using a cricketarchive pictures like this is not fair, suppose if I write to them and IF they grant permission for use with an article, will that make the use fair ? Tintin 10:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has (stupidly, in my opinion, but there we are) now disallowed the use of 'with permission' images: [4]. --Ngb 10:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But the copyright holder could allow it to be licensed under a Wikipedia-compatible licence. It's just when it's only allowed to Wikipedia that there are problems. Stephen Turner 10:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cricinfo doesn't own its profile photos. They are from Getty Images, and I'm sure cricinfo has only paid for its own use of the photos, not to allow third parties to use them. 82.35.232.72 10:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To answer your general question, IANAL, but as far as I can see, the rules for fair use are rather restricted, and widely abused. In my opinion, it's almost always not worth trying to rely on a claim of fair use. I'm not sure which articles use BBC images, but BBC images would not qualify in general, even if they could in particular situations. Stephen Turner 10:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I found some helpful discussions on this at Wikipedia_talk:Image_sleuthing#10_point_plan_for_judging_fair_use. and Wikipedia_talk:Image_sleuthing#Fair_Use_Frustration Stephen Turner 10:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess the summary is that, for someone who was a player till recently, unless you are able to take a photograph yourself, you can't use one :-( Tintin 14:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket pics (finally)

Well it's been a while, but I had a few issues the first time and then exams, but now I've finally got the cricket pictures on line. I've got 18 different pics of a used cricket ball (I didn't have access to a new one unfortunately), and 19 pics of assorted equipment (pads, bat, gloves, helmet). Obviously I am not the world's most talented photographer, and my grass needed a mow, so let me know which pics you think are the best/most useful and I'll upload them to Wikipedia. The ones online at the moment are reduced, real size is 1600 x 1200 pixels. So, here they are (I think I've made the album public, let me know if there are problems):

AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 28 June 2005 04:14 (UTC)

Nice images. Don't worry about the quality, I can touch it up. Ball images #7,8 show the rough and shiny sides well. The last two are good closeups of the ball. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 09:27 (UTC)
You seem to have played a lot of cricket. Its OK for wikipedia, I'll try and clean some images up. The bat images aren't very clear. The side view is not very clear. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 09:32 (UTC)
Haha, yeh the pads are a bit old and yellow... I have not bought new ones for a long time, those were the best I had! Yeh, I was finding it difficult to get a photo of the bat with it lying on the ground and me trying to get above it so as to fit the whole thing in the frame. If I find time this weekend, I'll have another go at the bat ones. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 28 June 2005 14:36 (UTC)
Why don't you go ahead put these image in commons:? There's a windows program for bulk uploads too. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 29, 2005 09:16 (UTC)
all of them? AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 29 June 2005 23:58 (UTC)
The ball images I've mentioned. Once you get the bat images you can put those up too. I don't know what the rest feel, but I'll pick out a few on the pads and helmets shortly. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 11:07 (UTC)