Talk:Adam Gilchrist/Archive 1

Mention of the 4,540-run mark of Alec Stewart's that Gilchrist passed comes from this Cricinfo article. Stewart scored several thousand more as a specialist batsman. Loganberry (Talk) 20:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Obsession with adding family details

A number of people have added family details. If we are going to do it for Gilchrist we should do it for ALL cricketers otherwise it is inconsistent. Those wishing to revert back to having Gilchrist's family members will be personally responsible for this. I seek concurrence from Turner on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.56.65.6 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 28 November 2005 UTC.

They were added quite some time ago, and you are now removing them, with no other reason than that it is inconsistent. If you really feel it is inconsistent, then add such details to other people. It is quite normal for biographical articles to include such information where it is known. JPD 11:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have only recently come across Wikipedia and notice almost all cricketers do not have family details listed, so I believe articles should not have them. If JPD wants them he can add them, not me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.56.65.6 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 November 2005 UTC.

I just quickly looked at a few off the top of my head, and found that Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting and Don Bradman all have family details listed. At any rate, the fact that something isn't yet included for another player is not a reason to delete it here. Removing verifiable relevant information is usually considered vandalism. If you object to inconsistency, fix it constructively, rather than be deleting things. JPD 11:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As do Michael Schumacher, Michele Timms, Brian Lara, and John Howard, This is perfectly appropriate information to have in a biographical article, if it's available. Please don't remove perfectly legitimate and appropriate content from a wikipedia article on spurious inconsistency grounds; if the inconsistency bothers you add family details, where known, to other players, and indeed other individuals, on Wikipedia. --Robert Merkel 11:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I can find just as many counter examples, Allan Border, Simon Katich, Jacques Kallis, Justin Langer , Andrew Strauss, Richie Benaud , John Eales , George Gregan, Kevin Rudd , Simon O'Donnell , Michael Costa, Philip Ruddock the list goes on and on. why should it be MY responsibility to add family details when I don't agree with the concept, if YOU want family details for ALL cricketers, you ADD it. stop deflecting the work onto others, I clearly am not interested in adding family details for others. should we then add if they are not married? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.19.11.70 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 28 November 2005 UTC.

You clearly have not understood my point. If the other articles do not have the details, it is because they are not known/no one has bothered to add them yet, not because they should not be there. Wikipedia is a work in progress and will always have inconsistencies of this sort. So that is not a good reason to delete something. You suggest now that your real reason is that you don't agree with the concept. I am not particularly interested in adding these details, but I am against removing it for no good reason. You will have to make a fairly good argument against including the information, because it is generally understood that this is perfectly relevant biographical information. JPD 12:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

no JPD, you asked me to add details for others, I am clearly not interested in that concept of adding details for others and request that you do. Why should I add info when I don't believe in the concept? and why do then you and others have to give me examples of articles with family info, I merely countered this example. if you are such a strong believer that the same info should be eventually added to others, I'm not stopping you, just that you should be consistent yourself and commence from today adding family info to other cricketers. the debate ends here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.19.11.70 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 28 November 2005 UTC.

I haven't added any family details to anything, I have simply objected to you removing it. I suggested that you add the details because your reason for removing it was "inconsistency". I didn't suggest that it was your responsibility to do this, but that this is the correct way to fix such an inconsistency. It isn't a good reason to delete material, and so, I will restore the article. I will be consistent and act in the same way towards other articles. JPD 13:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

again you are deflecting the work onto me. you clearly said in history that I should add for others. stop telling me what to do.

I tend to agree with Anonymous. I regularly see on Wikipedia things being removed for being irrelevant. what next? should we say cricketer's favourite foods? I know a couple of their favourite foods, so I'll start adding. Steven Fitter 01:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Start with the Gatting article I reckon. --LiamE 23:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with JPD, the fact that many cricketers biographies do not include family details does not mean that they should not be included - family details are I would have thought a normal part of most biographical material. What is written is brief and doesn't include anything other than immediate family - you wouldn't want to say their uncle or cousin is John or Harry or whoever (unless a relation is also notable in their own right - such as Martin Crowe/Russell Crowe). Wikipedia is a work in progress and you can't expect everything to be completely consistent - there is enough important material missing, without taking out perfectly good material - for example the Lindsay Hassett article (admittedly a stub) does not mention that he was captain of Australia - I might do some work on that article myself.Likie 03:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Walking Controversy Section

Must admit I am baffled by this section. As far as I'm concerned there has been no suggestion that Gilchrist's walking had anything to do with Ponting being chosen as captain. When Ponting was made ODI captain it was generally regarded as being because opening batsman, wicketkeeper and captain would be too much for one player to take on. Further, the reason that Ponting was made test vice-captain after the World Cup was that he was clearly heir-apparent by that stage and, in fact, Gilchrist was reported as having requested that Ponting replace him as v-c. In my opinion the entire section is misleading and should be removed in so far as it links his walking to his not being made permanent captain. Opinions? Shadow007 06:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's at best speculative, and we shouldn't throw allegations around like that. Feel free to rewrite it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have re-written it removing the inference that the walking incidents affected his captaincy chances. However, I still feel a section talking about the captaincy is worthwhile although I don't think it should draw any parallels with the walking issue as, like you said, it's at best speculative and, in my opinion, has zero credibility. Shadow007 11:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when has an action that has long been regarded as 'good sportmanship' been regarded as controversial? This section needs to be reworded to emphasise that walking is a positive sporting action rather than a negative one. Macgruder 10:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not our place to say whether it is positive or negative. It generated controversy, so we report that. JPD (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the language used does not suggest that. "Gilchrist has not shied from controversy in his international career, igniting the 'walking debate' by walking" .

He walked and there is controversy, but the opening suggests that he courts it, and the choice of 'igniting' to describe his actions is inflammatory(ha!). The paragraph should be primarily about walking, not about controversy. Practically everything in the world generates some controversy somewhere. That doesn't mean that they need to be included in a controversy section. The section should be called 'Walking' not 'controversy'. After all it's not a list of controversies is it - there is just the one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macgruder (talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Drive for GA/FA

Hello, this is just a note to say that this article has been selected by WP:CRICKET as an article which should be either a good or featured article by the start of the forthcoming Cricket World Cup. As such, I'll be tagging all original research with the typical {{Fact}} tag. I would encourage all editors to work towards making this article as good as it can be, including citing all claims of notability in accordance with the WP footnote policy. Let's get the party started. The Rambling Man 21:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is this really a "High" importance article for cricket?

• No, I don't think so. But in the words of OJ Simpson, "I didn't do it..."! Happy to downgrade that to Mid. The Rambling Man 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• If Gilly's a walker, we should have dozens of examples, so the list we have is not exhaustive. On that basis, it should be for the most notable examples - and it's not. Can we prune it down please?

• Agreed, notable, controversial walks should be described, other than that we can use half a dozen or more references to other instances. The Rambling Man 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• In the lead we have two nicknames... and then a third. Is the third in widespread usage, or is it a one-off?

• Yeah, the source of "Demolition Man" isn't exactly great (India Times)... happy to comment it out for now. The Rambling Man 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a few issues from me. --Dweller 11:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the third is a one-off and shouldn't be there in the article. Even the first two should be moved somewhere to the middle of the article. The opening sentence is quite bad, actually. Tintin 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Change it to something more palatable Mr President! The Rambling Man 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My writing skills are almost zero, which is why I only offer comments and almost never rewrite what others have written ! Tintin 12:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm happy with whatever contribution you make, as it's usually expert and razor sharp. --Dweller 12:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've re-written the lead with a couple of new citations and some wikilinks. Actually, something sprung to mind, we can use the List of cricket terms to see which terms can be straight wiki-linked to (e.g. out) - this ought to help with the anti-jargonists and non-cricket-lovers understanding of the article. The Rambling Man 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Structure

Can I suggest we mirror the Paul Collingwood structure? Also, the last sentence of Domestic should probably be rehashed and moved into International. --Dweller 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That was going to be my plan, assuming Colly made it to FA! The Rambling Man 14:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Although not necessarily a reliable source, this may be helpful for inspiration... The Rambling Man 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

There's this one being used on the Australian national cricket captains page:

, which we could use. The Rambling Man 14:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's great - maybe for ODI section as he's wearing pyjamas. --Dweller 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Tidying

Want to put all the records, awards etc into Achievements section. Consensus? What's the origins of the nickname "Church"? Is it a gag on the last six letters of his surname? --Dweller 15:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, achievements section does it for me. Gather ye, and redeposit... The Rambling Man 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Consistency

I think we need to decide on a consistent titling for the Northern hemisphere winter season... e.g. 2005-06 or 2005/06 etc. --Dweller 11:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Identity of primary School

The section headed “Early and Personal life” includes this statement “He and his family lived in Dorrigo where, playing for his school, Deniliquin Primary School...” One of these places has to be incorrect as Dorrigo is on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales and Deniliquin is perhaps 1,000km away in the Riverina of NSW. I do not know which one is correct but at least one of them must be wrong. Furry 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as Deniliquin Primary (or Public) anyway. It's Deniliquin North and Deniliquin South. Anyhow, Dorrigo has only one public school, so I've fixed it. source. Peter1968 04:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Challenges undoing vandalism

I undid an edit called 'undoing vandalism' because it seemed to either be reverting to a previous example of vandalism, or it was itself vandalism disguised as an undo.[1] However, it appears as though the version showing as current isn't the version I reverted to. I don't know if it's the servers lagging, or because it's such a big file? I did CTRL+refresh, so I don't think it's my cache. Anyways, sorry in advance if I lost anyone's good edits in my reversion or if I made things worse. Anchoress 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bowling Style

I think that the "NA-Wicket-keeper" comment regarding his bowling style should be changed, because he does have a bowling style - just because he wicket-keeps doesnt mean he doesnt have a bowling style. Baggy green describes his bowling style as "Right-arm offbreak" here. He has also bowled two overs in List-A cricket according to that website aswell. I am going to change the artice, and if people diagree with it, then woop-de-doo. Twenty Years 05:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When you say "also", that is in fact all that he's bowled - 12 balls in List-A (conceding 10 runs). Here, it's far more useful to say "wicket-keeper" than "Right-arm offbreak". —Moondyne 07:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Domestic limited overs...

This is a very good article, congrats. I did, however, notice an odd ommision: basically nothing is said of Gilly's domestic limited-overs career. The sole focus of Domestic career seems to be the Sheffield Shield, almost nothing is said of the Ford Ranger One Day Cup. Mikker ^(...) 10:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Gilly's day

What a coincidence. Gilly is featured in main page today here and he's butchering Sri Lanka in finals there. Gilly's batting is a great feast for cricket fans. :) Gnanapiti 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. He's going to make history today I think. The Rambling Man 18:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn, what an innings, what a player! And they were trying to keep Ponting on strike too! It must be the Weet-Bix =))

still featured?

The "featured" star seems to have been lost in the article. – Kaihsu 16:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Walking and Discipline

After checking the reference (130) for the game in which Gilchrist was fined 50% of his match payment in 2004 for arguing with the umpire after the dismissal of Andrew Symonds (before his recall) Asoka De Silva was not standing in that match. The correct umpire identified in news articles was Peter Manuel, and I've updated to reflect this, however there is no Wiki article for Peter Manuel (the umpire), it might be worth creating a stub. DrDoogle 05:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Man-of-the-match awards (ODIs)

In the section "Man-of-the-match awards (ODIs)" it the column "Ground" indicates that the "SCG" is in Sydney, Brisbane and Chittagong:

[quote]

5 February 2006 South Africa SCG, Sydney 88 runs, 2 catches

14 February 2006 Sri Lanka SCG, Brisbane 122 runs

23 April 2006 Bangladesh SCG, Chittagong 76 runs, 4 catches, 1 stumping

[/quote]

What's up with that?--203.10.224.61 07:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Squash Ball

The article fails to mention that Gilly used a squashball in his glove during the CWC Final 2007. The Sri Lankan's are saying that it is unfair etc. It was resported on channel 9 news (in Perth, Western Australia), and his batting coach - Bob Meuleman was on the news talking about it. Might be notable in the following few weeks as more info comes to light. Twenty Years 10:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)