Talk:Bibliography of cricket

Henry Bentley
Since the AfD debate has now been closed, I'll comment here on something that the AfD propent mentioned in withdrawing his nomination. Presumably the "incorrect" link was to Henry Bentley (writer), which has been altered to Henry Bentley (cricketer) on the grounds that he played first-class cricket. However, since today he is far better remembered as a writer than as a player, I can't see that the change is an improvement. JH (talk page) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was Bentley I had in mind. I found an entry for him in Cricket Archive and a further enquiry revealed that he was both player and writer. I accept your point that he is now known for his book but in Wikipedia terms he became notable by playing first-class cricket and it may be true that he would not have become a writer if he had not first been a player. Anyway, I have used the Cricket Archive information to create a stub for him. There is another Henry Bentley so it is necessary to disambiguate. --JamesJJames (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for creating the stub for him. JH (talk page) 09:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Two lists in one
One problem with this list, that no-one mentioned in the afD debate, is that it's really the summation of two lists. One is the "history" list, of works that add importantly to our knowledge of the history of the game. These may have no literary merit, and some of the earliest are no more than compilations of scores that would otherwise have been lost. The second list is the "literary" one, of works that are notable for the quality of the writing and/or the insights which they give into the characters of the players being written about. Cardus's works fall into this category, for example. These works can even be fictional (eg de Selincourt's The Cricket Match). JH (talk page) 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Very true but to split them would require a subjective view. Neville Cardus also wrote historical material and that has as much literary merit as his contemporary works. It is often said that Beyond a Boundary is the greatest cricket book and I would not disagree with that, but a large proportion of the book is historical so again a literary book has a foot in the history camp. John Nyren's book is essentially historical but it has literary merit also. Arthur Haygarth is essentially a compilation of scores but he also wrote biographies and other articles which could claim some literary merit. I think it is best to keep a single list. --JamesJJames (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename
This article title is a bit of a mouthful and whenever I need to come here, I never seem to be able to find it. Would a rename to Bibliography of cricket be in order? Category:Bibliographies by subject has many similar lists. Moondyne 05:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. At the moment, the name neatly parallels the category "Cricket historians and writers". Wjem I want to find the list, I go to the entry on John Arlott, say, click on the category, andd then use the link to the list that's provided there. JH (talk page) 08:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's always a good idea to conform to WP standards and some of the biblios I've looked at in the category are very useful because they are applicable to their subjects on WP. I think the trouble with our list is that it has just grown with all sorts of stuff getting added that is not used as a source in any of our articles.  It would need a fair bit of work to bring it all up to scratch but I think it's worth doing.  I would definitely remove anything that is not used as a reference in any of our articles.


 * I also think we should endeavour to replace items that look like:


 * Scores & Biographies by Arthur Haygarth


 * with a formatted and more detailed:


 * Arthur Haygarth, Scores & Biographies, Volume 1 (1744-1826), Lillywhite, 1862


 * I think we should split the contents between works that we are using as primary sources and those of secondary interest.


 * Should we move this over to WT:CRIC and get a project view? BlackJack | talk page 15:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I should say that my inability to type or remember an article title is a poor argument for a move. Moondyne 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If we removed everything not used as a reference in any of our articles, then we would be changing the purpose of the list as currently stated in the list's intro. (Unless by "reference" you mean to include works included in the Bibliography sections of articles about cricket writers.) I'm concerned that implementing this would result in deleting some quite sinificant works from the list, simply because many of our articles are nowhere near as fully references as they might be. JH (talk page) 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Moondyne (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

List of works by cricket historians and writers → Bibliography of cricket – "Bibliography of x" seems to be the WP naming convention, although many exceptions to the rule do exist. See Category:Bibliographies by subject. The current name is a slightly clumsy mouthful which serves no purpose that I can see. A previous discussion above was never publicised or actioned. Moondyne (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Go with convention and an easier title to remember, especially as WP:CRIC seems to have a tacit agreement that each article contains a bibliography section. Jack | talk page 17:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - for the reasons given above. I'm a little surprised to find that when a change was proposed three years ago I was doubtful. JH (talk page) 19:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems sensible, and the current title is actually a bit of a nonsense (Whose list of works... Incomplete list of works... List of works we happened to have on our shelves...). Johnlp (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

To merge...

 * WikiProject Cricket/Library. Moondyne (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)