User talk:BlackJack/Archive14

, Lower Order Batsman(cricket) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect, Lower Order Batsman(cricket). Since you had some involvement with the , Lower Order Batsman(cricket) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for assisting me in articles
Thank you BlackJack for your timely assists and guidances. I got my first DYK on the Wikipedia main page today. You played a part in it as as I learnt from your editing. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jack hello again. Today I got my first good article. I wanted to share the news with you as it is quite encouraging for me and I wanted to share it with editors who have helped me :) Cheers. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Cricket articles
Hello Jack the great. I appreciate your contributions in cricket articles. Here, I have a proposal. There are so many new articles on the way for create.
 * To help in completing missing articles of template

Head-to-head records of Test cricket teams template Template:Cricket five-wicket takers Web link .. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=start;size=200;team=8;template=results;type=bowling;wicketsmin1=5;wicketsval1=wickets
 * To help in completing missing articles of template
 * To create template and articles on five-wicket takers of all teams on sample of Template:Cricket centurions

Hope you will cooperate with us to create articles. Cheers.  Green Cricket   TALK  04:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello GC. Nothing at all great about me, but thanks for the kind thought. I'm short of time at present and reduced to just the watchlist for the next week or so. Leave it with me and I'll take a look. All the best. Jack | talk page 22:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851
Just thinking about this edit, I see that Category:First-class cricket doesn't include any individual matches, but there doesn't seem to be any reason why it couldn't. I thought the article belonged to the category because of its historic nature - it's the first FC match in Australia. StAnselm (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * . I don't mind if you want to add appropriate matches but we have them in Category:Cricket matches. A better idea might be to have a sub-category Category:First-class cricket matches and similarly for List A and T20. Jack | talk page 19:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is an excellent solution. It looks a bit strange, though, having Bicentennial Test in that category, though - I think we need a sub-subcat called Category:Test cricket matches (If, indeed, we view Test cricket as a subset of FC cricket; but Category:Australian first-class cricket teams, for example, doesn't include the Australian test team. What do you think? Should Category:Test cricket records be a subcategory of Category:First-class cricket records? StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Test cricket is almost a form of the game in its own right as it is such a higher standard than domestic first-class. Okay, I'll go with that and do the same with Category:Test cricket matches. I think I would prefer to keep the Test records separate but have an open mind, really. Jack | talk page 20:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's done. What do you think? It leaves just a couple of games in Category:Cricket matches: one is a non-F/C international and the other a village cricket event. Jack | talk page 20:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that was very helpful. I'm so glad we managed to iron out our differences, and I'm genuinely thankful that you haven't retired. Have a good wikibreak. StAnselm (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, StAnselm. I haven't quite gone yet (just checking my mail, actually). Yes, I agree that it's good to sort things out and I hope all goes well for you in 2016. Best wishes. Jack | talk page 18:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Major cricket - possible merge
Hi. Given the closure of Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination) as non-consensus I'd like to consider a possible merge of the Major cricket article to History of cricket - see the discussion I've started at Talk:Major cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, BST. Sorry, I'm very busy and really don't have much time for WP at present but thanks for keeping me informed. Just off the top of my head, I would say that if the article is to be merged, assuming there is a consensus for that, then some of it would fit neatly into the "substantial source" section in History of Cricket but other parts would have to be woven into Forms of Cricket. I'll repeat this at your merger thread and then I must be off again. All the best.

Your views
Hi Man! plse have your views at the template which is considered for discussion Template:ICC Test cricketer of the year  Green Cricket   TALK  14:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of cricket, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olde English. 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) 11:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Still around
Hey, Jack. Good to see you are still involved in cricket stuff on Wiki. WillE (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Will. Glad to see you are still around. I'm involved, yes, but only as a "freelance" now. I am not taking part in any project activity. All the best. Jack | talk page 15:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1790 English cricket season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hambledon. 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) 12:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Fixed in DEV copy. Jack | talk page 16:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Gathering
Hello Jack! is there any annual gathering organized by WP Cricket?  Green Cricket   TALK  11:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello GC. None that I have ever heard of. You'd be best to ask at WT:CRIC. All the best. Jack | talk page 12:11, 21 February 2016 (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 Nazcheema -- Nazcheema (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Jack, the article has passed but the BOT is picking up a fail parameter and that is incorrect. I am querying with the BOT manager. Please be assured the article has passed. Thank you, Jack. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  19:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Naz. Must have been a bug in the bot. Jack | talk page 17:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, DYK is something I've never thought to get involved with. History of cricket would have been very different if WG had given up then. Thanks, Graeme. Jack | talk page 17:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Goodhew (Kent cricketer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Goodhew (Kent 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/Goodhew (Kent 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. p b  p  13:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. I see it resulted in a snow keep. Jack | talk page 17:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Christiana Willes
This is a flying visit only and what I say in my banner hasn't changed. I'm going again now as I have to be somewhere else this evening. I spotted the Christiana Willes topic at WT:CRIC and realised it is something I can help with, given all the sources I have. If anyone wants to ask me anything about Christiana or her brother or roundarm or "Old Everlasting" Tom Walker, please leave a message here and I'll hopefully be able to get back to you fairly soon. I do still look in every few weeks. Thanks. Jack | talk page 17:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Christiana Willes
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Stanning senior


The article John Stanning senior has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable sportsman, fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheKaphox  T  18:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Throwing in "senior" matches
Hello, I noticed you changed the scope of this page from "major" to "senior". Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't all matches played by adults classified as senior, even minor club matches? I'm pretty sure a few cricketers were called playing senior club cricket in Australia before Wills was called in the first major (first-class) match. However if we were to include those former not-so-notable instances, and all subsequent examples at senior level, the list would become incredibly long and tedious. Therefore I think major is preferable to senior. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In this sense, "senior" means "major", "top-class", etc. to signify the highest level of competition. "Junior" equates to "minor". That is the case in many sports, especially football. I made the change because "major cricket" is a contentious term which has wrongly been used in a quasi-official way. We used to have an article on here (now a redirect) which caused a lot of controversy and the best way to resolve the issue is by renaming so that an innocuous adjective, which retains the context, is used instead. Jack | talk page 09:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved it again, this time to "top-class" because that is an uncontroversial adjective without ambiguity and encompasses each of first-class, ListA and T20 at both the international and domestic levels. Jack | talk page 10:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Stubs?
Hey. I just changed Eric Hatfeild, Dick Blaker and David Jennings (cricketer) to Start rather than stub - recently you rated them, and others, as stubs. I don't usually rate anything myself, let alone stuff I've worked on. You might want to have another look at the ratings - to me they're clearly start class and way (way!) better than a stub. Blue Square Thing (talk)
 * Hello, . Any you spot, by all means just reassess them. I used "class=stub/importance=low" as a default because there were over 700 that had not been assessed and I just waded through them all without looking at them to get them out of the unassessed list. The ratings can always be reassessed later. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, which are wrongly rated in any case. The worst are a large number of real stubs which people have rated C-class. I'm working my way through all of the assessment stuff to get everything into a class and importance combination and also to try and identify cricket articles that are not attributed to WP:CRIC – that will be very difficult to do and there are a lot of them. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 09:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries - I'd be interested to see what you think of those three in terms of ratings - that gives me a benchmark to go with. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think they're definitely starts. A stub is something which amounts to nothing more than a two or three-line introduction or definition, like you would see in a dictionary or a compact encyclopaedia. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 10:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bland
There's a biography of this guy at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/2613 - if you don't have access I can email it to you, should you wish. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD discussion
Hi BlackJack: Just a note that I have re-opened Articles for deletion/England cricket team Test results (1946–59). You closed the discussion with a keep result, stating that the nomination was withdrawn, (diff) but this is not valid, because several users have !voted to delete the article. See WP:SKCRIT for more information. North America1000 03:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry I haven't followed process. Learning point. I'll go back in and change my vote instead. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 09:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the GA review
JerrySa1 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. All the best. Jack | talk page 09:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're interested
The other three members of the Million Dollar Backfield are also awaiting GA review. None of the others have quite as much detail as Tittle's, but I worked on them with the same diligence. My goal is a good topic. Lizard (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did notice the McIlhenney one in passing. Leave it with me but if I do three I'll have to spread them out a bit. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 12:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No rush, take your time. I plan on taking about a week off from Wikipedia in a few days anyway. Lizard  (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be taking my aforementioned break now. I'll be back no later than Wednesday, the 30th. Just a heads up. Lizard  (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Those pesky Julian dates
"The 1945 cricket season was the 348th in England since the earliest known definite reference to cricket in 1597." It was actually 1598 going by the modern calendar, as under the Julian calendar the new year didn't begin until 1st March and the court case was in January if I recall correctly. I haven't altered it, as I wasn't sure whether the year affects your count of the number of seasons. Actually the number of seasons seems a bit arbitrary to me, as we know cricket was being been played some fifty years prior to 1598, and the first match that can be identified as "major" was still some years in the future. So I would favour omitting the sentence altogether. At best it seems to have very limited relevance in the context of this article. JH (talk page) 19:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I decided against the first important match date (currently 1697) because I'm aware of research being done in the post-Restoration era which could conceivably discover earlier match records. Since John Derrick is likely to remain the earliest definite reference for the foreseeable future, I settled on 1598 as the first season after the Guildford land case. I did consider c.1550 but was put off by the circa: it is preferable to have a definite date as the startpoint. The same consideration applies to the earliest known organised match in c.1610. As you say, the land case was in January and so a few weeks before the end of 1597 in the then calendar. Therefore, 1697 was the 100th season after the case and so on. As the articles are season reviews, I think the age of the sport is relevant and does provide context, especially as it was unquestionably a significant sport in the time of John Derrick (who identifies "creckett and other plaies", which means cricket was significant and other sports less so) and Randle Cotgrave. I believe we should be giving the reader of a season review a clear idea of how long cricket seasons have been happening, compared for example with baseball which in America properly began sometime before 1845. Thanks for the feedback. Food for thought. Jack | talk page 09:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not altogether convinced. At a minimum, I'd suggest qualifying "1597" with "(Old Style - 1598 New Style)". JH (talk page) 11:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would provide some clarity in case anyone thinks January 1597 was a whole year earlier. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 12:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)