User talk:BlackJack/Archive13

Disambiguation link notification for January 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Jackson (cricketer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Overton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Jack | talk page 16:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The C of E -- The C of E (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Senior and junior
Hello. You may be right, though I genuinely never remember having seen the whole words written out, and the pages were named many years ago by a literate British editor. Neither the whole-word usage nor the sen/jun abbreviation are mentioned at the relevant naming conventions, as far as I could find. Perhaps it/they should be, if they're normal British usage. Suggest you go through the requested move procedure, and if it's accepted as an EngVar thing, it can be incorporated into the relevant bits of MoS. At the moment, WP:NCPDAB just says "In the case of Senior/Junior, the preferred format is with "Sr." or "Jr." written after the name (for the possible use of commas with these, see WP:JR). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The NCPDAB text doesn't surprise me as this is essentially an American site. I don't want to get involved in changing MoS so I'll leave it. It's only a cosmetic thing anyway, really. Thanks for replying and all the best. Jack | talk page 15:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Women's Cricket Association
The cricket-administration-stub template that you added does not appear to exist and comes up as a red-link. Since the WCA is now part of cricket's history rather than still in existence, I wonder whether the previous cricket-hist template might have been more appropriate in any case. JH (talk page) 21:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was my mistake. The template is called cricket-org-stub. I've corrected it now. There was a pile of things in category:cricket stubs which had been wrongly allocated to the parent stub cat, so I've been correcting them. Housekeeping, eh? :-) Jack | talk page 11:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Able to help?
Hello Jack, hope all is well. Are you able to lend a hand with this little project I'm making: WikiProject Cricket/requested photographs of cricket grounds? PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, AA. Fine, thanks. Hope you are well. I don't have any useful photos now unless I can spot any in a book but then we have all the copyright issues to contend with. I see some of these are in the north – Kendal, for example, is not a million miles away. I have a few contacts down south who might be able to help. Ironically, I could have got you most of the Gloucestershire ones thirty years ago as we used to live there in the 1980s and I actually visited some of these at the time! Moreton-in-the Marsh, for example, I knew very well. Anyway, I'll bear this in mind and see if I can help. All the best. Jack | talk page 06:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad all is well! I'm in the deepest south, stones throw from the English channel. Most of the grounds near me have photos, I can do Worthing, Aldershot might be difficult as the ground is in the army base. I wish I had taken some of the Cornwall ones when I was down there in the summer. I was surprised to find the County Ground in Bristol has virtually no pictures on the commons of it! PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club players, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Bull. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Jack | talk page 19:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season
The article W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The C of E -- The C of E (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Middlesex County Cricket Club players, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Howard (cricketer). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Major cricket
I note you made some changes to this. A couple of quick questions: did you remove the references to Twenty20 because you don't consider them to be "Major" or because they are already included under the banner of "List A" and "LOI". In which case, we need to make sure to update our articles on List A status to include Twenty20 in that (although that will get a bit confusing, it is the official designation I suppose.) Also, you suggested that it is in "common parlance", but it isn't really is it? Maybe amongst a select group of statisticians, but not amongst the wider cricket fan-base. Harrias talk 07:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I take it for granted that T20 is part of List A but if that would mean a revision of List A articles to include it, then it's best to reinstate it in the major cricket description. I'll remove the bit about common parlance as it doesn't add value. There is reason to believe that people used to talk about major and first-class matches in past times before the official definitions (e.g., W. G. Grace certainly had clear views about first- and second-class status which probably had a bearing on the 1894 accord). Thanks. Jack | talk page 09:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've always assumed that List A and T20 were distinct. And when we include career statistics for players, the template has separate columns for List A and T20. JH (talk page) 10:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think of ListA as including T20 either. Could ratify by finding someone who has 1 T20 and 0 ListA matches to their name in cricinfo or cricketarchive? --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On refelection, I think you're all correct. We should consider T20 a separate exercise. I changed the major cricket description again to express that. Are you okay with the current wording? Thanks. Jack | talk page 20:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your article J. Cole (Hampshire cricketer)
Okay this is confusing-seems to be one of 2 different people. You put it as someone from the 1800s and there is also a picture of someone in the present day on the side bar that a anonymous user put. So not sure what to say since I'm not a expert on this-but this is 2 different people. Wgolf (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Wgolf, and thanks for letting me know. This one had evaded my watchlist so I've reinstated it. It was vandalism by someone who apparently has a problem with Joe Cole the footballer. Reverted everything to last good version (I say "good" but really little is known about this chap). All the best. Jack | talk page 19:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Pioneering phase (cricket)
Hello. I like the new article which pulls a lot of useful things into one place. But I'm not sure about the title (though not instantly able to come up with anything better, except, perhaps, simply "Early cricket" or perhaps "Early cricket to 1744" or "Cricket to 1744"). What do you think? KR. Johnlp (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, to be absolutely honest, I hate the title and I've been struggling today to think of something better. The point of the article is to specify that there was an evolutionary point sometime in the early 1760s when someone, somewhere, started pitching the ball and, as a result of that, someone invented the straight bat. That all happened, though we don't know precisely when (unlike roundarm and overarm) or where. I want to make a short title but it is difficult to come up with something that encapsulates all of that in a few words and still makes complete sense. Maybe I should just go for something obviously banal like Introduction of the pitched delivery and the straight bat?? I despair. Perhaps I should sleep on it. However, I'm glad you like the article; that is encouraging. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 20:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pitched delivery bowling is better, but on the basis that Bowling relates to a different "sport", should it perhaps be Pitched delivery bowling in cricket? Johnlp (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the one. I'll go with that. Whew! Thanks for your help, John. Jack | talk page 19:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Cricketer lists
The problem that gets created by re-doing the cricketer lists to the much higher standard – I see you've done Warwickshire today – is that the dates that CricketArchive put on their own list pages for county careers aren't always the true dates when the players actually played FC cricket (or any other notable form). For example, Dennis Amiss is now down as playing for Warwickshire from 1958, but actually he didn't appear until 1960. To get the true dates you have to go into each individual entry in CA, which is tedious, but which is what I'm doing with New South Wales currently and have done with the counties I've done previously (including Warks). It's probably a small point (and the newer style of lists looks much better than the old), but perhaps there's a way of maintaining the dates from the older lists (which, if I've done them, will tend to be correct) while transferring to the newer format. What do you think? Johnlp (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with CA for multiple reasons. You're right, though, about Amiss and a few others I've checked. I can easily recover the dates in the earlier version and transfer them into the new. Leave it with me. Jack | talk page 21:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree about CA. I've generally demoted it to being a "guideline" source. Perhaps unsurprisingly for a site which provides so much data, the edges remain very rough, and the 1+1=2 calculations haven't always been worked through. But still a good base to work from, if you're willing to do the legwork yourself! Harrias talk 23:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the positive response. I think I'm more favourable towards CA than you two are and think it is a fantastic resource, but there will of course be parts in something that big that are less satisfactory. There is of course a subtle distinction between our criteria here and theirs: they'll see that Dennis Amiss was (probably) signed by Warwickshire as a 15-year-old and date his career in the list page from that, or from some minor counties game; we only consider FC, List A and T20 as notable, so we wouldn't date his career until he'd appeared in one of those. Most of their cricketer lists (by county and Australian state, at least) include a few players who never actually appeared in any notable games. I'd suspect in any case that these cricketer list pages were done very early in CA's history and are only updated to the extent of adding new names as they make their debuts. Johnlp (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a guideline or intro is how I see it too. I find too many errors and omissions for my liking and, in addition, I never enjoy using the site. The advertisements are overbearing and impact response times for one thing, but the worst thing about it is that mouseover popup which fades in and then slowly out if you touch the top line menu, especially frustrating if you touch it accidentally. I could also take issue with them about their views of retrospective first-class cricket but they are entitled to their opinion; the danger is that some people see a CA classification as "official" when it is only, indeed, a guideline. This is why I'm currently taking pains to clarify that major cricket before 1895 includes not only what CA considers first-class but also what the earlier sources considered important. On its plus side, the site remains a useful and sometimes essential reference point for the vast majority of match scorecards. Jack | talk page 06:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1731 English cricket season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chelsea. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bury Hill, Arundel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amberley. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Jack | talk page 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sophia Gardens
Sorry for not replying directly to this earlier. I'm not too keen on the idea of moving the article to Sophia Gardens Cricket Ground as I don't believe that is a name that has ever been used verbatim. I'd be happy to go with Sophia Gardens (cricket ground) though, using the Wikipedia standard parenthetical disambiguator. Then we could use Sophia Gardens as a disambiguation page. I do believe, however, that the cricket ground satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and could occupy the un-dabbed title. – PeeJay 11:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that approach if "Cricket Ground" has never been part of the title. I think there will be strong opposition if we try for the un-dabbed title, though. Jack | talk page 07:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of historically significant English cricket teams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Aylward. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Cricket miscellany
Category:Cricket miscellany, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Jamaican cricketers v Jamaica cricketers
This edit is not correct. You do not have to be Jamaican to play for the Jamaica cricket team, the same as you don't have to be a Yorkshireman to play for Yorkshire (at least, not any more). A case in point Wes Hall played for Trinidad and Tobago cricket team despite being Barbadian. Please reconsider. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * {{yo|Mattinbgn}]You're right, but unfortunately there is a can of worms here. Category:Yorkshire cricketers was also wrong because it was included under "Sportspeople from Yorkshire" and Category:Trinidad and Tobago cricketers is clearly being used for people from the islands and not just those who played for the state team. I think the optimum categorisation for players of a particular club or team is club category (Jamaica doesn't have one; Yorkshire does); players in (nationality) domestic by team; and cricket in (location). Sorting it all out would be a logistical nightmare but I'll amend anything I spot. Thanks and nice to hear from you again after a long time. Jack | talk page 05:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Daft
I see he's back. Feel free to ping me if you see him doing anything, I'm happy to revert and block on sight. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pakistani cricket team in England in 1962, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saeed Ahmed. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Jack | talk page 19:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pakistani cricket team in England in 1962, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imtiaz Ahmed. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Frank Scholfield
 * added a link pointing to Chelsea


 * Frank Ward (cricketer, born 1865)
 * added a link pointing to Carlisle


 * Leonard Parkinson
 * added a link pointing to Salford


 * Reginald Smith (cricketer)
 * added a link pointing to Scarborough


 * Thomas Whitehead (cricketer)
 * added a link pointing to Preston

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * All done. Jack | talk page 12:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A couple of small things (well, three, actually)
Hello. Did you notice three initials at the foot of the IP note you responded to yesterday at the WT:CRIC page? I agreed with your response, BTW, rather than the other rather churlish contribution there – which the IP later "dignified" with one of his characteristic retorts, subsequently deleted. Another small point: your new Lancastrian backfilling has a slightly transatlantic tinge in the date formats, probably courtesy of ESPNcricinfo. A third: I think both of us now deserve a metaphorical pat on the back for surviving 10 years in this place. Kind regards. Johnlp (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. Ah, well. I am copying and pasting the info for the Lancashire players from the ESPN records into my template: it's for quick turnaround. I suppose that format is American so I'll try and think on to change it.
 * Ten years? Where have they gone? It wor all fields round here then! All the best. Jack | talk page 18:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Wilfred Parker
 * added links pointing to Pendleton and Cheetham


 * Harry Pennington (cricketer)
 * added a link pointing to Moston


 * Stephen Preston (cricketer)
 * added a link pointing to Heywood

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1731 English cricket season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Advertiser. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute_resolution_noticeboard regarding Let to know No result or Abandoned. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Please help me to resolution by your comments at DRN.  Srinu  ( Talk ''' 15:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

New biography of WG
I see that a new biography of WG has just been published: Amazing Grace: The Man who was W.G. by Richard Tomlinson. Judging by this review it sounds like it's worth reading. JH (talk page) 08:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Charles Sawyer (cricketer) and Charles Sawyer (rugby)
Hi BlackJack, your creation of Charles Sawyer (cricketer) has unearthed a potential alternative occupation for him as Charles Sawyer (rugby). Both these Charles Sawyer's have the same date of birth/death, place of birth, and the stated places of death are only 8-miles apart, so it appears they are the same person. Please see Talk:Charles Sawyer (cricketer). Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please email me
It's enabled. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kevin Kerr (cricketer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Airdrie. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. Jack | talk page 10:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

First class vs Major cricket
Hi,

I've reverted your edits at Major cricket to a redirect to First class cricket. I'm really concerned at this movement away from the specific term that's been in use since the 19th century. Unless I'm missing an obvious discussion on this (which is entirely possible) then I'd argue very strongly indeed that this is not a good move - the term first class cricket means something very, very specific. Kent, for example, are a First class county (I reverted that edit as well) - because First class, in that context, means something really important and specific.

For want of a better place to do so, let's talk about this here and/or at the wikiproject.

If there has been a discussion and consensus reached then please point me in that direction and accept my apologies. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To add to this, having had a chance to properly read the citations and so on you placed in the article, it strikes me that the term is being used in almost every case as a synonym for "important" or "significant" rather than as a term in it's own right. Yes, CricInfo refers to "major teams" - because those are the main teams (or the important teams if you prefer) that a player has played for - not because the term Major Cricket has any specific meaning at all. The cricket tournaments that SuperSport refers to are the main, most important, most significant or, well, major, tournaments globally. They aren't tournaments in Major Cricket.


 * I argue, very strongly indeed, that cricket has a number of forms - as in the article at Forms of cricket. The most important forms of cricket have their own articles - First class (with Test as a key subform), List A and Twenty 20. They head up that article - and, indeed, the types of cricket section in the Cricket article - because they are most important. They are the major forms - not forms of Major Cricket. Aren't they?


 * We already have numerous articles about types of cricket. The forms and main cricket article seem to do the job - with the individual articles abut different versions of the game as expansion. I really don't see us needing another article duplicating that work. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Major cricket and have a look in the WT:CRIC archives; this has come up numerous times, and each time we demurred away from the vague and undefined term "major cricket". Harrias talk 17:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The term seems to have been introduced and/or wikilinked, to a number of articles over the last few days. Perhaps there needs to be some clean-up done? I'm hellish busy, but might try to get to it if someone else doesn't. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, first of all, if you don't like an article you take it to WP:AFD and seek consensus. You do not use the availability on this occasion of a redirect to remove it. That is completely out of order. It was deleted formerly because it lacked citations, not because it was an invalid term. It now has citations and, as has been demonstrated, it is in common use by several sites including ESPNcricinfo. It is even used by the ECB and the MCC.

"First-class cricket" did not become an official term until the 1895 season in Great Britain. It did not become globally official until 1947, though the global aspect is not a problem. Taking Kent CCC as a good example, the club was founded in 1841 and before that there were Kent county teams going right back to 1709. They have always been a major team because they always had a high standard. They did not become a first-class team until 1895 and to assert that they were first-class before then is wrong. You can say they were unofficially first-class because of their high standard. Then there are List A and T20: these are not first-class cricket but they are major cricket. Are you saying Kent is a first-class cricket county only? That is not the case. Jack | talk page 13:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I was bold. I saw something that I believed was wrong - and believe is essentially an attempt to bring a term into use to mean something that, quite frankly, I see no evidence at all to support that it exists as a term in it's own right - and I did something about it. You disagree with me. OK - I'll see if I have time over the next few days to raise this on the relevant wikiproject first and see what the view is there. I can see the attempts to establish the term there, however, so it's probably not worth my time and bother. Thanks anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You must follow standard process for one thing and you must show respect to established editors. Reverting someone's work, that is obviously designed to improve coverage of the subject and address the issue of first-class cricket as a completely misleading term (which it is, thanks to CricketArchive), is not acceptable without prior consensus. WP:BOLD is no excuse. I suggest you read first-class cricket and seek to understand its official history. If you are influenced by CricketArchive, I would recommend that you look elsewhere for inspiration. If you want to ask me anything about the subject, please do. I have written a book about 18th century cricket so I do know something about the game's history. Jack | talk page 06:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Moving on from process because it will get neither of us anything other than high blood pressure... With specific reference to the Kent article, the thing that makes Kent a first class county is that they play first class cricket. This distinguishes them from a Minor County and is, I think, the way in which we distinguish best between the 18 counties who compete for the County Championship, and the Minor Counties. Yes, they play other cricket, but their distinguishing characteristic compared to, say, Norfolk is that they play first class cricket. Its one of the things that makes them different - they are a first class county. Norfolk, who aren't, also play List A cricket for example. My local club plays T20 cricket. These are, apparently, forms of "major cricket". Which is now the term we're using in the Kent article - which is confusing and fails to distinguish Kent from Norfolk. Which, I think, is failing the reader.


 * I think it would be helpful if you could look again at that element. You may or may not have a point in general - that's for others to decide - but in terms of distinguishing FCC from other teams, I'd say there's a very strong case for including that term specifically in the lead of the relevant articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what you find so difficult to understand. Kent in cricket terms is, and has been for 300 years, a major county. For the first 53 years of its existence, the county club was not "first-class", except in an unofficial retrospective sense in view of the fact that Kent has always been considered a major team. "First-class" in cricket does not mean "top-class" because Test and LOI cricket are higher standards. "First-class" simply means that the team is a member of a national double innings championship; or is alternatively a team that has regularly competed against championship teams (e.g., MCC, CUCC, OUCC); or is a team mostly made up of championship players (e.g., North v South, GvP); or is an international team of that standard. A "first-class team" is a major team that also plays (major) List A and (major) T20, but those two are not first-class. You are using first-class as an umbrella term to mean the highest level of domestic cricket when in fact it is only one aspect of that highest level. There is no official umbrella term but the one used most commonly is "major cricket" which, as the article says, is even used by ECB and MCC at a semi-official level. What do you think a Major Match Group is? As a term, "major cricket" is used now in the same way that "first-class cricket" was itself used loosely in the latter part of the 19th century, until the May 1894 meeting at which it was officially defined.

You say "the thing that makes Kent a first class county is that they play first class cricket. This distinguishes them from a Minor County". Sorry, but that is nonsense. What distinguishes Kent from Norfolk is that Kent is a major county that plays major double innings cricket (which is confusingly known as "first-class"), major List A and major T20. Norfolk is a minor county that plays in the Minor Counties Championship (though personally I find the term "Minor Counties" disparaging) and has sometimes played in the major List A competitions. Equally, as I saw on BBC last night, there is a minor football club called Salford which is playing in the (major) FA Cup against major Football League opposition. That doesn't make Salford a major team and occasional List A matches do not make Norfolk a major team (although Norfolk was once a major team, as were Berkshire, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, but not their current clubs).

Finally, you have requested that "first-class cricket" is included in the intros of the relevant articles. It is. In the opening paragraph of the Kent article, its lead says: "The Kent teams formed by earlier organisations since 1709 had major cricket status and so the county club is rated accordingly since its inception: i.e., classified as an unofficial first-class team by substantial sources from 1842 to 1894; classified as an official first-class team from 1895 by Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the County Championship clubs; classified as a List A team since the beginning of limited overs cricket in 1963; and classified as a major Twenty20 team since 2003". I only added the T20 bit this morning as, given the context, it was an oversight to not mention it.

I think you are hung up on the term first-class cricket without fully understanding what it implies and I suspect you have been deceived by CricketArchive which throws the term around its pre-1895 coverage (which is inadequate, incidentally) as if it is official. It is not. Note what I have written in the Kent lead and other articles about "substantial sources". Are you saying that Kent was first-class before 1895? It wasn't, except that the substantial sources recognise it as a major team through that period and so it is fair to say that, in terms of double innings matches against opponents of a similar standard, Kent would have been rated first-class if the concept had been official half a century earlier.

As I said above, ask me if you have any questions. I can help you with all the relevant sources if you don't have access to some of them. Jack | talk page 07:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No questions. You've said everything you need to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Birley
Hi, in this edit to Yorkshire County Cricket Club you introduced a short ref to page 145 of Birley but there is no full details of this Birley in the article. Could you add full details of the book to the article. Many thanks. Keith D (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, well spotted, Keith. Yes, I meant to add some biblio entries. Will do it now. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 17:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

S. Perera
If you have any time, please read my comments here. I hope I haven't come across as too defensive or rude.

And thank you for standing up for me. You are a true friend. Bobo. 15:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, mate. I do not think your comments on that page are in any way rude or defensive. I've had my say there too. I think we need to make sure we cite NCRIC at the outset and remind all concerned that either NCRIC or GNG must be met, not both of them. We can then go into CRIN if more detail is necessary. All the best. Jack | talk page 14:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Narain
Just in case you aren't pinged (I think there should be such a word as pung...), I responded to your comment here. Thank you again. Bobo. 21:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)


A tag has been placed on S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — S Marshall T/C 18:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ping
Good morning. Just in case you don't see it, I've mentioned your name on Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) and requested some brief assistance.

All the best. Bobo. 04:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

re: Perera
Hehe. And thanks for your work in getting more sources. I like seeing a postive comes from a negative. Have a good Christmas too. Ho ho ho.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd chime in as well and say thanks for your persistence with Mr. Perera. Went to have a look at our article on the more famous Mr. Perera, and discovered it was one I'd written … not sure if it's a good or a bad thing that I can't remember all the cricketers whose articles I've worked on, but I think there's a few of us in the same boat!  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  18:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

WP:NPA
Your edits on User talk:StAnselm are over the personal attack line. In no way does "You, hoever, behave like one of these Old Testament myths you obviously believe in and decide that you are right and everyone who has a different point of view is breaching BLP and up to no good. You are a disgrace. " help build an encyclopedia, particularly in a message where you are asking another editor to remember to assume good faith. Similarly "People like you and your infantile sidekick disgust me." clearly violates WP:NPA. It looks like things have cooled in subsequent comments and the situation resolved itself. Thanks for your efforts in bringing that about, and let's keep it that way in the future. Prodego talk  18:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Reconsider
Just seen the ANI thread. Hope you reconsider the retirement and come back. All the best.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your kind words, mate. Haven't decided yet if I will come back but I've been told Perera is a keep and that some idiot is trying to wreck NCRIC, so I'm just going to look at that for now. I object very strongly to being called a liar and accused of fabricating source material. I'm not sure yet if I want to be associated with a site that takes no action against blatant bad faith like that. Anyway, I'll give it some thought. Hope you had a good Christmas and I wish you all the very best for 2016. Jack | talk page 07:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that it's not nice that you do your best in an AfD and get bad-faith accussations thrown around. It's a tough call to stay in a place where a small minority don't appreciate your work. But that's what it is - a small minority. I know for a fact it annoys the hell out of some editors that I'm still here when I've gone through similar issues in the past! Take a break, relax, and if you change your mind, hopefully see you back. All the best for 2016 too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hang on a minute. 1) If you have an issue with me, have the decency to talk to me directly. Don't rubbish me behind my back. 2) I never accused you of fabricating sources, I said you were reading more into them than was actually there. There's a big difference. You asserted quite strongly that the existence of two S. Perera entries on Cricinfo with a span of years was enough to infer that they were different people whose careers covered exactly those years. Neither turned out to be true. I think I was right to doubt whether so much could be concluded from so little material. 3) I am nobody's "sidekick". As I've said, I never had anything much to do with St Anselm until we crossed paths at the Perera AfD. 4) Demanding someone be blocked, then vilifying their religion, then screaming at them to resign from the encyclopedia, all because they disagree with you on an AfD is contemptible. If you're going to continue hooting and throwing poo at St Anselm be aware that your own behaviour is not beyond scrutiny. Reyk  YO!  15:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed the names above and apologise for including you in that statement because, as you assert, you did not accuse me of fabricating sources. You did indeed comment on interpretation of them and that is different. Jack | talk page 16:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Perera
Thank you. Looks safer to change the Perera article after things have cooled down a bit. Tintin 15:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's okay, Tintin. All the best. Jack | talk page 16:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)