Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

The current discussion of CCOTM is ?.

New FC Template

I realise there are many pluses about the new template, mostly being when there is no fourth innings or other such information doesn't need to be put in. Though I am sad to see the old one go, I think it was nicer but obviously impractical, this new one seems to be encouraging people to be incredibly biased in the way it is deployed. The first Eng WI Test, for example, features 4 batsmen scores for the first innings and not even a WI bowler. The standard for Test cricket is four lines of bat and bowl, normally deployed as one per innings apart from when some innings are incomplete. Even as an Englishmen proud of this four century innings I think it looks ludicrous to have all those batting figures in and not have an even amount of bowling. It needs to be kept to a strict one bat, one bowl figure - any more outstanding notes can be made in prose underneath; the template is a scorecard. Tony2Times 03:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think any centuries or five wicket performances should be noted. The reason no WI bowler was mentioned was surely because there was no outstanding WI bowling performance. If two batsman score double hundreds in an innings would you really only mention one of them in the template? Nick mallory 06:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Tony2Times. When four batsmen score centuries and no-one bowls with any great success, surely the summary score should reflect that. JH (talk page) 08:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with Tony2Times. Any Test centurion certainly deserve a mention. Perhaps the best West Indian first innings bowling performance (Powell's 2/113) should be mentioned too, although, as that figure demonstrates, none stands out. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I said above that we should be more flexible in whom we list, and that we should list four batsmen and no bowlers if appropriate. However, Tony has one valid point, in that it would be nice if we could define an objective rule as to who gets included. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If the rule of one batsman one bowler is good enough for cricketing scorecards (and call me crazy, but I believe these templates are scorecards) then I don't see why we think we can overrule them with this sloppy, un-uniformed version. It's incredibly biased to list four batsman and no bowlers as I said before; furthermore, what happens if no batsman scores a Century and there are no five wicket hauls? Do we leave it blank? And if you read what I said, I didn't at all suggest not leaving out the other centuries, all previous coverage of cricket has prose underneath either briefly commentating or pointing out notes of interest, it is here you could point out other noteable scores. But seeing as you're going to ignore me I'd like to at least suggest that Stephen is listened to - there needs to be an objective rule. Tony2Times 12:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you've seen a rule of one batsman and one bowler for scorecards. I think I've always seen all notable performances listed. Listing a poor performance just because it happens to be better than the rest of the team — or not listing a good one just because someone else on the team has done even better — seems quite wrong to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how you can reasonably claim that showing all 4 centurions with good batting figures and deciding not to show any poor bowling figures is biased - it is simply illogical to just show on centurion and one bowling figure, especially now we have the flexibility within the templates to do so.

For an extremely over-exaggerated example, say team 1 posts 200 all out, with no batsman getting a half-century and one bowler getting a 6-for and another a 4-for. Should it really just list a man who got 30 and the bowler with 6? That's bizarre. It doesn't give an accurate showing of what's happened in the match at all. And in reply, if the two openers both got in the 90s (say one on 99 and one on 91, the rest was scored by extras), and they reached their target without losing a wicket - should it really show the man on 99 and a bowler who didn't get a single wicket? I say no - absolutely not. It's not biased, it's showing what happened in that match. If West Indies had had 4 batsmen get centuries we would list all 4 of those too - again, not bias, common sense.

I do think we need perhaps should considering having some general idea of what to list but the problem is it varies considering what the team scored. I put both batsmen in the West Indies 2nd innings in because no wickets fell, even though they weren't particularly high scores: leaving that side of the scorecard blank would just be odd. I also listed all 3 half centuries in the West Indies innings because in terms of how the match was played they were all vitally important innings - plus with 4 names listed on the other side of that row it didn't stretch the scorecard any more. The problem lies in the fact that the variables within the game don't really allow for us to put stringent rules on exactly what can be put down (although this isn't always the case).

And if we do decide on specific parameters for who/what to list they should definitely be different from those employed on ODI scorecards - say if we decided on all centurions listed on Test match scorecards, then all half-centurions should be listed on ODI scorecards; simply because of how uncommon centuries are in ODIs compared to Test matches.

Sorry if this is a bit rambly, but I couldn't think of any shorter way to put it. :p AllynJ 13:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If we need rules, I would suggest:

• All centuries should be listed.
• All 5-fors should be listed.
• In the absence of a century or a 5-for, the best one (or two) batting and bowling performances in each innings should usually be listed, up to a maximum of, say, four per innings; subject to a general rule that the scorecard should try to give a picture of the innings, so there is no need to provide figures for a batsman or a bowler if the bat dominated the ball or the ball dominated the bat, and extra figures can be given if they assist to put the match in context.

IMHO, there are too many individual scores listed in the summary at West_Indian_cricket_team_in_England_in_2007#Test_series. I would list all four centuries in the first innings (leaving out the West Indian bowlers, as none is worth mentioning), and Panesar's bowling must be mentioned, but I would limit the West Indian scores in their first innings to Chanderpaul's 74. I would mention Pietersen's century, but leave out Cook's 65, and the two 3-fors. Finally, I would list both West Indian openers as a special case, for balance.

I rather liked the rather restrained listings in West Indian cricket team in England in 1988, a featured article; I have just bulked them out a little, and I think I prefer the before to the after.-- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all your points about the most recent Test, except I'm not sure I would mention either of the batsmen in the fourth innings. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Infoboxes, we mention individuals' 100s and 50s and their 5-wicket-innings and 10-wicket-matches. Those would seem to me to be the sensible cut-off points. Many (most?) important matches will also have a report in which other noteworthy but statistically lesser deeds can be mentioned. There will always be notable deeds that don't qualify: Jimmy Matthews' double hat-trick, for one. But 100s, 50s, 5-w-is and 10-w-ms are stats that are already collected. Johnlp 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with having the best batsman and the best bowler? That's how it was done in the 2007 cwc article. If scores/wickets are the same than we could look at the strike rate/economy etc.--THUGCHILDz 03:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some further examples would help. It seems a bit rough to me to list only one of a trio of triple, double and single centurions in favour of listing a bowler who sent down 2/53, say (although that was considerably better than the next bowler's 1/195).[1] And 3/178 is all very well, but the highlights for me are the 364, 187 and 169* (and the 5-for and 4-for in the replies).[2]

Perhaps a less unusual match - I would mention all four centuries (and the 99, I think), but neither 2-for, and then the 80 and the 99, all four 4-fors.[3] -- ALoan (Talk) 09:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Answering an earlier question, I have seen the rule used of one batsman/one bowler (or slightly more depending on how many innings are done) on Sky Sports, Channel 4 and some import TV from other nations, I think South Africa's coverage of the Aus/RSA tour of late 05. The summary has always been presented like this on TV and the reason for why is that it's simple, there is no argument between what should and shouldn't be included and it looks nice and neat. With this new rule of "lets include a centurion, oh and didn't he do well let's put him in there too" we could end up with however many batsman and no bowlers or vice-versa - these outstanding figures are why there is a prose commentary section below.

You're forgetting that you don't just show the scores to show how amazingly one side did, if the side did terrible then their best bowler, in doing poorly, is a benchmark for how badly the team as a whole did. I can find no definite rule given for this new system except a rational one provided a few posts before this, however even that still can't decide "well, if there's no centuries or five-fors then we'll put in the best one (or two)" - which is it? Wikipedia is annoying enough with everybody changing eachother's articles over the time, with the given rule that all TV coverage I've seen uses, I don't think I've seen a summary used in other mediums, you have the definite rule people won't argue between - four batsmen, four bowlers to be divided equally amongst the innings, only omitted when a figure isn't gained (ie if no wicket is broken, no bowler shall be listed.) As someone said earlier, there are too many individual scores listed - it's a brief scorecard, if people want to know lots then let them read a commentary underneath. Tony2Times 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right that showing the best bowler gives some idea of the bowling figures, and that the scorecard should be reasonably brief, but the real point of the summary is to give some highlights from the innings. These sorts of summaries have been around a lot longer than any rules you have recently observed in some tv coverage. I remember more about summaries in newspapers than the ever-changing tv standards, and am most used to seeing three players per innings, usually two batsmen and a bowler, but with flexibility, so that 2 bowlers and a batsman is common, and 3 batsmen (or more?) would be understandable in the recent match. There's no reason to stick with the recent rubbish imposed on us by tv. JPD (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't have hard and fast rules. Any century or 'michelle' fivefor should be noted, but circumstances can vary so much in what else should be there. Glamorgan got bowled out for just 60 on the first day against Middlesex, I don't see batsman and bowlers getting equal billing on that scorecard. I agree that the scorecards currently used by one TV station shouldn't dictate what we do here. I really don't see what the problem is here. Nick mallory 12:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team in England in 1900

I'd appreciate comments/style issues on this (or even better, make changes yourself). I've use an Infobox which doesn't really fit the bill. I could do with one for a tour rather than a series. (not relevant here but for most tours you might want to list say leading first-class run scorers on the tour as well as leading Test run scorers in the series). Also used a minor variation on the new score template which lets me put in little more than the scores - planning to add more later. Have currently preferred West Indians to West Indies, the latter being traditionally reserved for representative matches (eg Tests) Nigej 16:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good effort, sir. There are a few areas were it needs a bit of stylistic tweaking, and I will have a go when I have time, but the content is the thing, and this wins in spades. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Flags & Template:300 ODI wickets club, etc

In the above template and all of the others of that ilk, the country names have been replaced with those lovely little flag icons. I'm no fan of them, and I don't like them in the templates, but I though I would see what others opinon of them were. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It might just be my tendency to lean on the side of minimalism, but I like them. A flag is just a synonym for a country when I read, maybe it's just me. AllynJ 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

When I created the Elite Umpires template, I did look at a version with flags and without flags, and I must admit I think they look better sans flags. The problem with them, in my opinion, is that they draw the eye away from the names and make the template look more cluttered than they could be. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 22:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the flag versions, but I do agree that the templates are better without them. Apart from visual clutter, we shouldn't be using images alone to convey information. If the aim is to communicate which country the players are from, it should be in text, and the flags, if any, used in addition to the text, which would defeat the idea of minimalism that AllynJ speaks of. JPD (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think adding flags would cause a debate, but it's nice to see people noticing. The reason I added them was because I felt having a person's country written in text in brackets next to their name looked a little clumsy. From what you are saying it seems the problem is not the look of the flags themselves but the clutter they cause (mainly when there are many players/umpires in a template). Maybe if the template's are altered so that they are all of a uniform size - resulting in nearly all being larger, as opposed to how they are now - sized relative to contents, then the flags wouldn't appear to be cluttering as much? Also I'd like to point out that in case of templates like the All-rounder's double/triple you already have text right of the name for how many tests it took for player to reach the landmark, which seems alright to me, but having (ENG) or whatever in addition to that would look worse in my opinion than a flag to the left of the name. Regardless, if the most people aren't fans of the flags I'll be happy to switch back to the text. Muzher 16:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the flags much better than the abbreviated country name. I think the templates look better now than before. Kalyan 18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now made all the templates relating to players/umpires in the of width 80%, and also formatted the code better so it easier to see/edit the list of players/umpires for each template. I think the templates now look less cluttered with the flags thanks to the increased size, but I would like to hear what others think. Also I'd appreciate it if someone could check the templates to make sure I have made a mistake. Finally, I've noticed that the templates, for players/umpires, aren't all consistent in the ordering of people. Some have the names ordered alphabetically, some from highest to lowest (for wickets,runs etc.) and some are ordered differently (I can't see how). We need to agree on a way to order the names, so that all the templates, for players/umpires can be made conisistent with each other. Also some have small text indicating the amount of caps/tests for that player to the right of their name. We need to agree whether to include each person's number of wickets/runs/matches/whatever in the templates. Personally I think there are two possibilities: Order alphabetically without any small text indicating wickets etc. or order by number of wickets/runs/whatever and include the small text showing the number of wickets/runs/whatver. Your thoughts? Muzher 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My objections don't end with clutter. Who knows and can spot the difference between and ? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

I'm concerned about just how closely Richard Miller (cricketer) resembles [4]. It seems to be an almost word for word copy. I hope that this is an isolated case. JH (talk page) 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Of the three players that I chose at random, all of them were virtually lifted from that page. They're all created by User:BlackJack too, but he's wikibreaking at the moment so we can't ask him whether he had permission. The author does say that Information on this site may be used in other published material on condition that my authorship is clearly acknowledged, but I don't believe that is compatible with GFDL (and we aren't currently giving credit!). →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

When I looked at the "From Lads to Lord's" site towards the end of April, it contained a rant about Wikipedia, but that now seems to have been removed, so it may be that the two of them have since made their peace. I left a message on BlacjJack's talk tage at the time: User_talk:BlackJack/Archive 4#John_Leach.27s website and he responded (rather cryptically) on mine: User_talk:Jhall1#From Lads to Lord's JH (talk page) 20:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack has said that he will be back in the autumn. As the articles are properly referenced there should be no problem that can't wait for his return. Johnlp 20:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rash comment removed. Sam Vimes | Address me 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I was trying not to say that... and now you haven't either. Johnlp 20:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly rash, but enlightening. It has put my mind at rest. JH (talk page) 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a case of an author freely granting his material to another publication in which he has an active interest. It is not a breach of copyright because he is the author and he has chosen to publish it in three different places (all free to readers, incidentally). It is not original research because it has been published elsewhere and he does always quote Buckley, Waghorn, Haygarth & Co. as his sources. Unlike Waghorn, Jack will always give a primary source such as an 18th century newspaper if he knows it.

Note also that, as in the case of Richard Miller, where "From Lads to Lord's" is mentioned it is given as an external link and not as a reference or even an external source.

The rant about Wikipedia was unfortunate and was written at a time when he had a major dispute with Wikipedia over an admin matter which resulted in the loss of a substantial piece of valid work that had to be redone. Unfortunately he forgot to remove the rant immediately afterwards and it was User:JH who pointed it out as stated above. Jack made his peace with Wikipedia several weeks before he went abroad in April. Indeed he may be back on the site quite soon as he returns to England this weekend, although he has said he wants to spend the summer pursuing another project. I am looking after his material in the meantime, when I can, and trying to reduce his stubs. It is not easy! --GeorgeWilliams 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, George, for that very full explanation. As you no doubt realise, I hadn't realised that the two people were one and the same until I followed up the link in the "rash comment" and light dawned. From what you've said, I asssume that it's no longer a secret that they are the same person. There's a risk that someone else in the future could make the same mistake as I did, but might take it straight to WP admin rather than raise it here first, which could be awkward. JH (talk page) 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It has never been a secret, JH. When he joined Wikipedia he used his real name for a while and then changed it to BlackJack which has a family connection. I wonder if he were to put something in his own site to the effect that permission has been given for his material to be used by Wikipedia, would that head off any possible problems about copyright? --GeorgeWilliams 14:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea. JH (talk page) 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is. Hello everyone. Thanks for your help here, George. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) promoted

Hello all, just a quick note to say thanks to everyone who helped, supported, commented (and even objected!) to the promotion of Bill O'Reilly to FA, the article was elevated yesterday evening. Good work everyone. The Rambling Man 07:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The mischevious side of me thinks it might be a good idea to get it on the main page on 10 September, the other Bill O'Reilly's birthday... Andrew nixon 08:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL! Excellent idea! I suspect Raul654 would like it. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work, all.--Eva ^bd 12:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job!--THUGCHILDz 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Cricket World Cup group stage - Is this an article or list?

Hi., i was wondering if this is a list page or article page. I am bent towards marking it list because inspite of the commentary and all other data, this is the list of matches as well as the summary of results for the group stages. The same is the case with 2007 Cricket World Cup Super Eight stage wikipage. I think that these articles look great in current shape and can be listed for FL/FA candidature, if we get photos added. Let me know your thoughts. I am not inclined to wait for another 4 years to close these articles and get them thru FA/FL cycle.Kalyan 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say they are articles but I guess it could be bent towards Lists. Anyways let me know what kind of pictures you would like, I'll look for them.--THUGCHILDz 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for as many WC2007 photos. Since my current interest is with the indian team, i noticed that apart from Dravid and Bhajji, most of the current and even past indian cricketers dont even have one photo. can you please upload as many cricketers snaps as possible. Kalyan 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Henderson (writer)

The article on Robert Henderson of "Is it in the blood" infamy has been nominated for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Henderson (writer). The opinions of WP:CRIC members, for and against, may be useful. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Squad template

User:Crickettragic seems very keen on these. I think they look ugly and add nothing to an article, except maybe during a tournament, especially as such things as playing in the World Cup should be mentioned in the article anyway. Can we come to a consensus on this? Andrew nixon 08:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they should all be deleted and replaced by categories. Categories are a much less intrusive way to convey the same information. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed this before, and I still agree with Stephen Turner that these should be deleted. A player who takes part in several tournaments ends up with several of these intrusive templates. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see how many 'click throughs' these templates actually get. The editing community seems split over the idea, but we have no indication of what the readership thinks. I wouldn't want to see a useful navigation tool (if that is what these templates are) gotten rid of. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 09:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Steady on soldier! I wouldn't say I was 'keen' on them .. I've only made a couple. I have previously made one for Bermuda and today I created one for Namibia from the 2003 WC. Now the players from these sides are unlikely to feature in many World Cups in the future so there is little to no danger of them piling up on a page. Also there is obviously less to write about on Namibian and Bermudian player's pages so I'd like to think the template adds something to what are generally very short articles.Crickettragic 10:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised this issue has resurfaced again. There is absolutely no reason to have these templates in existence - we are essentially being selective and NPOV in which tournaments we decide to make squad templates for (against WP policy). They serve no useful purpose on pages other than the specific Cricket World Cup (or otherwise) squad pages. That's the only place we should see squad lists shown, and that's the way it should stay. As for your point Crickettragic about having just some boxes depending on article length, well, it can't really be like that unfortunately. Consistency is the best thing to have - we either have every squad template or none. mdmanser 10:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no NPOV in deciding the tournaments to have the squad templates. It is used consistently with WC sports like football (check Ronaldo). Kalyan 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am against removing these templates. Can someone give me one good reason why the templates for WC participation removed? These players were part of the squad for the WC and hence the boxes should be retained on their wikipage. For example, please look at the Football - Ronaldo has entries from his participation in '94, '98, '02 and '06 WC. Asthetics cannot be used for removing a squad box - if so, we should never have template boxes in not only cricket but in any wiki page, just categories. Kalyan 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, the soccer pages would be better without them as well. Just because they have them doesn't mean we need to use them. Having said that, WC participation is less relevant to cricket than soccer, anyway. JPD (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, please tell me one sport where you support using squad boxes. Kalyan 15:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, what is wrong with having categories instead of the templates? Andrew nixon 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong in having categories, but for WCs, other sports do use Squad boxes. we can have cats for CWC, but in addition to squad boxes and not as replacement. Why no objection when football / rugby uses squad boxes but object for cricket. Kalyan 15:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I object to them there too, but I don't edit those sports. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists doesn't prove that the article in question should also exist; it's quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet. - but what if the article under question is a Featured Article? The corollary is also true - Following FA article leads helps one in arriving at a GA/FA level article. Please check Bill Russell - FA article. Look at the number of squad boxes in the FA article. Once again, let me state this - the squad boxes we have are non-standard in size and are not "hidden" mode by default. If we make these changes to the squad box template, we can ensure that the boxes remain non-intrusive. Kalyan 20:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd still rather debate the merits of the templates rather than say "they do it, so should we". Bill Russell looks a mess to me. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Shall I mention my favourite example of navigational templates gone mad? You know who. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And he's missing his three World Cup squad template boxes! Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He shouldn't have that many anyway. He has English Test double (1000 runs/100 wickets), All-rounder's double (2000 runs/200 wickets) and All-rounders triple (3000 runs/300 wickets). He should only have the All-rounder's triple, since it covers the other two. Likewise he has two boxes for the sports personality of the year, there should only be one.

Actually, English Test double is not redundant. Remember the point of the template is not to list his achievements (which is better done in the text) but to list other people with the same achievement.

I think we should have 2000 runs/200 wickets or 3000 runs/300 wickets but not both. (And whoever made the 3000/300 was confused what the "double" was in the title of the 2000/200).

Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fourth umpire

Should this be merged into third umpire? —Moondyne 15:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm not convinced they should be merged in to third umpire but I do agree they should be merged in to the same article, perhaps to Reserve umpires? AllynJ 19:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good article title, since the third umpire is not a reserve in the usual sense of the word. Loganberry (Talk) 23:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As there is a distinct role here that is not performed by the other umpires, perhaps we should keep it as a very short article, but make sure that there are references to it in both umpire (cricket) and third umpire. Johnlp 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Same view as Johnlp. Tintin 23:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Johnlp.--THUGCHILDz 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Saqibul Hasan

Both Cricinfo and CricketArchive have changed the name on their profile's of this player to 'Shakib Al Hasan'. At the moment I have that name as a redirect but do you think we should move our article to that page? He still seems to be refered to on TV and elsewhere as Saqibul. Perhaps this is a case similar to Younis Khan where he has recently come out and said that the press have been saying his name incorrectly. Crickettragic 22:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

During the recent ODI series with India I noticed his shirt had "Al Hasan" on it, and the South Asian broadcasters were also calling him "Shakib Al Hasan" (on scorecards) - I must admit I would be more likely to believe their spelling than the one used in the World Cup, where he was Saqibul. I'm not sure what to do about it, personally... I'm thinking Shakib Al Hasan would be more correct, but I have no experience with Bangladeshi names nor language. AllynJ 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Change it, if his shirt says Al Hasan than it's more likely to be Al Hasan and since cricinfo and cricketarchive changed it, it should be more clear, plus he might have just changed his name to Al Hasan so just change it.--THUGCHILDz 00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the page, seemed pretty clear that he is going to be refered to as Shakib Al Hasan from here on in. Thanks guys. Crickettragic 03:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill Johnston

Another of the 'Invincibles' is gone. His page will get a few hits today I bet, a pity therefore that the link goes straight to an American tennis player, rather than the cricketer! Is there anything to be done about that? Nick mallory 06:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I will upload my upgrades now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Expanded. I wonder if any newspapers will copy my obit. They used Polly Umrigar by Tintin last year. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrific work Blnguyen, well done. Nick mallory 08:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear, great job. There's now just five invincibles remaining: Neil Harvey (b.1928), Bill Brown (cricketer) (b.1912), Sam Loxton (b.1921), Arthur Morris (b.1922) and Ron Hamence (b.1915). —Moondyne 09:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've upped his importance rating from "low" to "mid", which I think is the least that it should be. JH (talk page) 09:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Schofield Report

Should there be an article on this? [5] The report itself seems pretty sensible to me, for once, in wanting to toughen the England team a bit and reduce the one day stuff. I'm glad they didn't come out advocating anything ridiculous like getting rid of counties, 'regional cricket' or any further reduction in four day first class cricket. Nick mallory 07:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I was contemplating posing this very same question. :p Yes, I definitely think it passes any notability questions, and that it should be created. AllynJ 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Will anyone remember what it said in a years time? Five? I just don't think there is anything radical enough there to warrant an article (bar killing off pro40, which could go in the relevant article). That said, I'm not particularly opposed to the idea of an article - I'm sure a decent one could be written. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Will anyone remember what it said in a years time? Five? That's a good question. Who now remembers the Clark Report from the 1970s, which had an enormous amount of publicity at the time? (Though admittedly most of its far-reaching recommendations were rejected.) It wasn't even mentioned in David Clark's own article until I added something on it a week or two ago. JH (talk page) 20:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

One Test Wonder

This slowly seems to be turning into a sub-list of list of Test cricketers - those who have only played in one Test. Presuambly there are several hundred... If this a useful thing to be doing? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be little more than a collection of trivia. I wouldn't oppose a category designed for it, but a page devoted to it? Hrrm, I say no. AllynJ 16:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointless. Should be deleted. --GeorgeWilliams 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

At best, it wants renaming to List of cricketers who have played only one Test match, and when you give it that title it becomes more ovbious that it wants getting rid of. The term One test wonder might warrant inclusion in List of cricket terms, but it's a bit neologism-ish for me. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have edited the "lead" section (the meat of the article), adding some references, etc - the term is used by multiple sources, from the Bearded Wonder to Cricinfo. But the list is problematic, I think. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What if they played one Test and didn't do any good. Some guys played one games and have 0 runs, wickets, catches. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with the article and its name, but the list should be replaced with a link to Category:Cricketers who have played in only one Test match. —Moondyne 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it a list of players who made a single appearance because if so then there is no point unless we are going to have other lists of players with two appearances, three appearances, 132 appearances and so on. If the list is of one match players who are deemed to have been "wonders" then we are into POV territory, which is where Blnguyen is coming from. The only thing to be done with this list is to delete it. If Cricinfo started this off then they should find better ways of spending their time: they might try editing some of their "historical material", for example. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dicky Rutnagur

I've written a stub for him, but does anyone know what his initials, DJ, stand for? I imagine that "Dicky" is a nickname rather than his real first name. JH (talk page) 15:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

FLC on Indian national cricket captains

Hi., i re-submitted the above list page for FLC after ensuring that the data is upto date till May 22, 2007 as well as added atleast one para pages on all players who have captained India in various forms of the game. I want to ensure that the article re-possesses its FL status. Please provide votes by clicking here.
Thanks - Kalyan 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir Ian Botham!

I think ALoan should have the honour of changing the name. Nick mallory 16:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

FL nom? - List of Cricket World Cup records

Is there any reason why this wikipage has not been nominated for FL already? I found the article to be current and am planning for a FLC once my current nomination - Indian national cricket captains passes FL. On the same topic, i have seen a lot of FL level lists in Cricket. Can we put in some effort and get all of these thru at the earliest? Kalyan 18:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason is nobleeagle who was the user who made the list and did an excellent job at that, left before he could nominate it or update it accordingly to the 2007 cwc but yeah go ahead with it.--THUGCHILDz 22:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

KP

Hi,

Just thought I'd let you all know the Kevin Pietersen has had a lot of work and attention in the last couple of days and is surely near to a FA push. If anyone can take a look and give some views it will give a focus on what needs to be done. It is now substantially referenced. I feel quite a bit of attention now needs to go on the prose as well as some general copyediting and fleshing out of some of the shorter 'series' paragraphs.

–MDCollins (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. It's the first thing brought up in any FA candidacy - right now it's one paragraph, and sums up where he was born, what his role is as a cricketer and a few records. That's not a enough. It needs paragraphs worth of information in it. If you want me to copyedit I can do that sometime in the next 48h, but you definitely need to expand the lead heftily first. Sorry if it's a bit blunt but it's an area where a large majority of FA candidates are brought up on, even when they're much much longer than this. Thanks. AllynJ 00:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, I began work on this article at about the same time without realising someone was already on it. The lead obviously needs work, but it's normally easiest to do that after the rest of the article is finished. As you said, a little more detail in some of the subsections, and a good copyedit should weed out most of the problems. I spotted a few, but there's probably some more hyphens instead of dashes in the text (WP:DASH is a pain sometimes). But it's coming along nicely. Trebor 00:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs a lot of info about the race quota in RSA, and why Pietersen left. Especially since he condemned the UCB of RSA a lot and then they told him off as well, and his hostile debut in RSA. Also there should be more about the much discussed psychology of Pietersen and how he pees off the Australians with his counter-agression. As Well, didn't he have a big fight with his first county team - the one before Hampshire? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All valid points - I was aware the lead needed rewriting. The fall out with Notts is mentioned already, could be expanded a little, as can the quota - although a detailed study of the quota system doesn't belong here. –MDCollins (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is this?

[6]. I am guessing its Errol Hunte in the 1930-31 WI tour of Australia in which case its probably a useful public domain photo. The source seems a bit unsure so I was looking for another opinion. —Moondyne 04:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent deaths

I added a new box on the project page. —Moondyne 05:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need it though?--THUGCHILDz 05:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would be useful as a centralised announcement spot. If you think not, I'm not bothered. —Moondyne 05:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I would think the portal would be a better place but the INT there should cover it.--THUGCHILDz 06:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Portal and ITN are announcements for readers. The project page is for editors. —Moondyne 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea. The cricketer's profile is bound to get more hits when he dies and extra stuff gleaned from obituaries can be added. As was noted before on one occasion it's an ideal time to make sure the chap's article is as good as possible and this box is a good place to check up on an article which may need improving. Nick mallory 07:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Archer

Ron Archer died yesterday. See BBC report. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)