User talk:BlackJack/Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Courtkittie 20:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Cricket
Welcome to wikipedia. As you may have noticed, some of us are working on a Cricket Project. You are most welcome to join and contribute. Tintin 18:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Santander
hi. sorry mate didn't mean do interfere its just the title seemed very long. I was only doing what I thought was best James Janderson 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering
The attitude of some people on the deletion discussion pages is well summarised by this article --BlackJack | talk page 12:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Joint issue
I see you changed a category for Joint issue from Category:Postage stamps to Category:Postal stationery. I wonder why you would do that when I only know if one item jointly issued that was an item of Postal stationery. All the other issues are Postage stamps so I don't see the sense or logic in that change. ww2censor 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
I'm more likely to contribute to the soccer and cricket projects than to philately but I'll see what I can do besides reading all the articles. I'm just a collector of British stamps really. Thanks anyway for taking trouble to say hello.

Your compendium is impressive. I'm glad to see that you are going to add images, which it needs. You're being very ambitious hoping to have so many main articles but if you're going to do the job you've got to aim to do it right. Keep up the good work. --AlbertMW 06:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Philatelic categories
Brilliant additions to Philatelic category nominations. I knew you would find them all much quicker than I, so thanks. Let's see if we can get Stan to come in on this one too as he seemed to get pissed off with some recent comments. I will ask him. Cheers ww2censor 16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's hope this approach will work. If we keep it simple enough then all should be good. Regarding the Postage stamps of Ireland, it took me about 3 months to do and now that I moved house I have few of my philatelic books available right now to work on the Postal history of Ireland. However, Stan thought it was good enough for a featured article but I still feel there is a small amount of work to do and besides which I would not nominate what is essentially all my own work. I do own a book called World Stamp Atlas that would be great for initially writing up many of the country related articles as it has dates, etc. Cheers. ww2censor 04:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Philatelists category
Seeing as I have been nominated to do this I looked at the CFD pages and am somewhat confused about how to list a group of subcategories for deletion. Would you please walk me through this process as I have not done one of these before, especially a group? Thanks ww2censor 12:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added my support posting. Maybe we should leave a message for each of the Philately Project members, so we get some more comments from philatelists as opposed to leaving it to the rule enforcers to overpower us on the unanimous consensus to do this. I could do it later on. ww2censor 16:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Aden
The problem was not the philately section but all the disconnected ends which removal of its material left in the article - references to pictures which were no longer there and so on. The stamps had been used to illustrate points about Aden's development so had become integrated into the text. Now the story of the stamps and their use can be developed freely. Thank you for setting that department up. (RJP 15:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC))

wrong category
Hi,

I can't understandf http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dalmatia&diff=66510641&oldid=65773518 this contribution]. Can you explain it? --Ante Perkovic 22:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I went through Category:Philately by country and removed all articles who's subject is unrelated to philately. Note that most of the remaining articles doesn't belong to this category either because the name of the category implies that it should include articles like Philately in Albania to Philately in Zimbabve. Most of articles that are now in Category:Philately by country belongs to Category:Philately or to some new sub-category that you could create.

Hope this helped. --Ante Perkovic 22:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

dummy edit - 123

Category:History of Bangladesh cricket
Jack, I admit I'm not certain, but I wonder if the above should be ...Bangladeshi..., as in Bangladeshi national cricket captains. If so, I can do a speedy delete for you. Regards -- I@n 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it, these four need changing These changes would be with the speedy renaming criteria for categories, so if you agree I'll do that. -- I@n 06:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:History of Bangladesh cricket &rarr; Category:History of Bangladeshi cricket
 * Category:History of Zimbabwe cricket &rarr; Category:History of Zimbabwean cricket
 * Category:History of Pakistan cricket &rarr; Category:History of Pakistani cricket
 * Category:History of West Indies cricket &rarr; Category:History of West Indian cricket


 * New Zealand is fine. -- I@n 06:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. -- I@n 06:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Underarm bowling

 * I knew it was you, well I guessed, because of your comments at the CfD. I am not wedded to the higher level categorisation.  I thought memorable moments in sport was a useful category for it.  Anybody wants to get me stirred up, mention Greg Chappell - I can still remember the whole thing vividly and feeling so ashamed to be Australian.  My interest in cricket declined enormously after that incident.  I basically don't watch it any more.  If I want to illustrate that my fellow countrymen are bad sports, that incident exemplifies it.  It was appalling.  Sorry for the rant, I feel passionate about it.  I don't mind t being categorised into NZ and Aust history, though I wonder if it didn't help to define the game internationally because As a direct result of the incident, underarm bowling was banned in limited overs cricket by the International Cricket Council as not within the spirit of the game. But I don't feel that passionate about it and I leave it to the wikipedia cricket community :-)--A Y Arktos\talk 21:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I reckon Greg Chappell was nothing like as bad as his elder brother who frequently brought the game into disrepute - I am inclined to agree, I don't remember Ian with any fondness and my grandfather in particular disliked him but I can't remember any family discussions infavour of them. Poor Trevor was supposed to be the better cricketer and was certainly trained up to be so, but there is obviously more to cricket that talent for batting and bowling!  As a child I actually saw all 3 play together at the Adelaide Oval - probably Sheffield Shield, I believe it didn't happen very often and I think I remember that comment being made at the time.
 * I don't think the incident really needs a higher profile. It is linked to February 1, Australia-New Zealand relations, 1981 in Australia, 1981 in New Zealand, Portal:Australia/Anniversaries/February/February 1 and even Glenn McGrath, as well as of course to Greg and Trevor and Brian McKechnie (cricketer) who received the delivery - nobody will be allowed to forget :-)  There are redirects from 1981 underarm bowling incident and Underarm incident.  Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 22:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cricket History cats and articles
Jack, I hope you won't mind but given your suggestion on project talk page that we should use the history by country articles to be going forward, I noticed a couple of the sub-cats that have useful info for articles in them so I created a couple of new articles to suit. I think we need to raise profile of many of the articles that are alone in period sub-cats and I would suggest we do a merge of categories as we are trying to do for "philatelists". What do you think? Best wishes. --AlbertMW 12:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. I think this is sorted now subject to speedy renames. --BlackJack | talk page 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicheley
As I have mentioned on User:Chicheley's talk page, there's no way that I can mediate this or take any action because I have my own history with Chicheley and could not possibly be unbiased. If admins are involved in disputes, they are not supposed to use any of their admin powers to resolve them. Like anyone else, they would need to get a third party involved. If you can't work things out through discussion, I suggest requesting comments or mediation. I understand your frustration. Let me know what you decide. I may have my own comments to add. --Samuel Wantman 09:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:RichieBenaud1961.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RichieBenaud1961.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 19:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was public domain but, having checked, can't actually prove it so, sorry Richie, you have to go. --BlackJack | talk page 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

CfD process
I understand your concerns, but I really don't think your suggestion is going to help anything. You are, in effect, taking away the voices of people who have chosen not to participate in the project - yes, they can make their arguments, but in the end they will feel like they're not being heard since they're not counted in the final vote. It seems elitist, and goes against the idea of everyone can edit, which Wikipedia is built on - which is why you won't get much support for it even though it may work out better than the current system.

The odd thing with the category system is that it takes very little effort to create multiple subcategories and make a total mess of the whole system, but to properly organise it you need to go through a morass of bureaucracy - and if you do attempt to structure it, people may not immediately see your point of view because they haven't been using those particular categories and realising how useless they are. I do think something needs to be done to address that, but to give project members some special power on organising is not the way to go about it.

I'll try to start a discussion on Village_pump_(proposals), though, and see if any good ideas come up there. Sam Vimes | Address me 09:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another thing before such a discussion is started, though: would you mind helping me with thinking of some examples of not very sensible categorisation? Good examples may help the argument that this way of creating categories is broken. Sam Vimes | Address me 09:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Philately Articles
hi mate. Excellent new articles on philately. You are not a collector by any chance are you? James Janderson 14:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Garth McKenzie
Jack, I don't wish to make an issue of it as I believe Graham is the right name for him here, but just for your info, I am fairly certain that Garth was very widely used - more than just a changeroom nickname. I had a work colleague who knew him as a grade cricketer and he told me that he was known as and addressed as Garth to almost everyone. That Cricinfo calls him that is further evidence. -- I@n 10:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries Jack. I fully agree with your reasoning.  After all, redirects are cheap :) -- I@n

Lord John Sackville
Why would a disambiguation page be necessary? There's absolutely no ambiguity. And it's not a "cricket article", it's an encyclopaedia article. (And articles always start with full names. Article titles, on the other hand, very rarely use middle names.) Proteus (Talk) 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because that's what he was called! Even cricket sources call him that , as well as contemporary references by politicians and his father. I'm afraid it's you who need to show that he was not called "Lord John Sackville", as prima facie that is the general format of people's names. Proteus (Talk) 11:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop misquoting me. (Or read what I wrote more carefully; whichever is more appropriate.) And I've already explained the opening line. If you still don't understand, I suggest you go and read the Manual of Style and the Naming Conventions. Proteus (Talk) 12:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey - I've just left my notes on the talk page. It's hard looking from the outside in because I don't have access to the books you have, but if you'd give page numbers where the nomenclature "Lord John Philip" occurs, that'd help a great deal in clearing the issue. Sam Vimes | Address me 14:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom
Hi. I realize the CFD discussion on this category is not going the way you hoped, but disrupting the process by attempting to erase any trace of it is simply not acceptable. Please do not do it again. The category is a normal umbrella category, just like Category:Rugby union stadiums in the United Kingdom and Category:Football venues in the United Kingdom, and should not be deleted. - EurekaLott 13:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to operating under faulty assumptions. The categories above make no attempt to reflect any league-based relationships or entities. I don't know why you would assume they do. They simply organize the facilities by geography, much like any other subcategory of Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom. If you would also like to organize them by league, I'm sure nobody would object. - EurekaLott 14:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Re
Thanks for the encouraging words. Happy editing! -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 15:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

First-class cricket
I moved the point that Test cricket is technically first class up to the First-class cricket introduction from the Conduct section. And then rearranged those two paragraphs in other ways that seem good to me, all matters of writing not content.

The Point of origin section is very good on the point in time in England, a model overview of a debate among historians on the scope of their subject. England is the proper point in space, of course, but (a) England should be said, not left unsaid; (b) there should be something more specific, Surrey or Kent or something. (I don't know enough to say, except by reference to articles by John L published by ACS on the web, which you know better.) --P64 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(continued) 1859, 1868, 1872 --are these the three "representative" tours of America by England? Do you recognize some "first-class cricket" in America at this time? Elsewhere in the world outside England and Wales? By the way, you may be interested in The Protoball Chronology, now version 0.7: A Fat Chronology of Early Ball Play 2000BC to 1860AD. --P64


 * Thanks for your replies. Larry McCray of Protoball is equally pleased with references to ACS members research such as "In the Mists of Time". Regarding North American cricket, I will order the Philadelphia volume from ACS. Regarding Early Cricket History, since last week I am in touch with Andrew H and Ian M by email. If you are formally working on that project, maybe AH sent my email letter to you as he did to IM, whose focus is the log of 1700s matches, entirely an English matter. (Briefly, based in Boston myself, I expect to poke around in primary, secondary, and tertiary resources during the next year, learning more about baseball and clubs, noting and passing on any tidbits that pertain to cricket per se, all this 1850s-1870s in North America.)
 * P.S. I arrived only a month ago via professional sports league organization and major professional sports league, soon to focus on pre-1850s in sports and the single-year pages of the 1850s-70s such as 1879 in sports --mainly writing notes on baseball (from my own knowledge) and adding notes on clubs and associations to sections on cricket, football, rowing (from sources evident at pre-1850s). --P64 20:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jack, Wikipedia can be addictive, and addiction to the Talk pages lacks one redeeming quality of addiction to writing or editing articles. Is User talk worse?
 * Let me pass on our research and writing interests away from Wikipedia. I will look at Category:18th century in sports and 19th century. When I arrived, I got lost in categories and in pages about categories :-(
 * On general sports history before WWI, my thought is that you should try contributing more on that period to the existing articles. There may be resistance and it may be ungainly, same as if you write 500 words on old Sussex County teams into the Sussex CCC article. Both intellectually and organizationally(working it out at Wikipedia), sports history before WWI may be Old County Teams cricket write large. If you try a WikiProject I will join it but I will not be a heavy lifter this year. Note, I don't have enough experience to know whether WPs work; cricket is encouraging, sports and baseball are discouraging. --P64 18:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Category: 18th century in sports
I see the point. Of course, the subcategory for cricket has exceptional integrity because you practically control it as the author of almost all the articles. Otherwise it would be tempting to mimic a Category on a page in your User section: personally endorsed articles. By the way, I visited Richard Newland and tried "the famous match" but that link is broken now.

On periodization, I suspect you may feel secure in 1697-1815 for "18th century" cricket in England, although 1815 is generally in the 19th century. By the way, many social/dining/smoking Clubs were established in 1814, says Paul de Serville.

19th century
Your "19th century" cricket is 1816-1918. For various purposes other historians have focused on the time between the wars, commonly dated 1815-1914, and called it the 19th century or even the (long?) Victorian era. Of course historians don't generally need to work strictly with time periods, certainly not to the point of allocating whole years, where for sports history it is necessary to allocate playing seasons wholly to one period or another. (By the way, you mentioned pre-WWI to me privately and your own "19th century" table does not have even red links for 1915-16-17-18.) (For Americans there was no war 1914-1916 except the Federal League War in baseball. But the war wasn't big enough to make 1918, 17, or 16 an appealing end date to a period. In baseball 1920 or 1921 (better but less traditional) traditionally begins a new era, because of baseball events unrelated to world ones.) --P64 19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

pre-war sports history
On your pre-WWI idea in general, looking over the 18th century cricket shows why it must be attractive to get going early, laying the groundwork before there are many articles (before ACS colleagues arrive, for example). But it also shows how much work you have to do on cricket alone. Considering that there are so many stakes already in the ground for pre-WWI sports, I think you should madly write cricket articles (and Wikiproject Cricket stuff) until the end of the year. Re a matter that I passed over last hour, research and writing away from Wikipedia: I suspect that you must do a vast amount of original research to complete these pages and I am awed by the past work of cricket historians if it isn't true! --P64 19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No change to most of that but I see that there may be numerous quasi-articles that would deal with the same issues across sports and regions. For a leading example, "firsts" articles: first professional team, first professional player, first compensated player, first commercial event, first commercial venue, first refereed event, first career referee, first championship, first newspaper coverage, first league, and so on.
 * 'Quasi-articles' because as Wikipedia articles for fans to read these might be worse than nothing, each a potpourri trying to cover multiple sports and multiple regions, maybe wallowing in trivia. But the conceptual clarification and methodological education in writing them with a group of people who know different sports and regions would be immense. Since they shouldn't be articles, they should be pages in someone's Wikiproject :-)
 * But it's a fantasy, eh? It works if two dozen thoughtful folks come together, knowledgeable about sports history with expertise scattered across the field. --P64 01:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jack, P64 here. Now where is my password?
 * I'm sorry about the long pause. The academic term is killing me. It's possible I'll visit in late December or January but I can't afford it before then and no heavy lifting then :-(
 * Wahkeenah has some interest in early baseball, but maybe not the prehistory that ties in with your general interest in sports history before Wisden, or whenever. I don't know of anyone else here who is even a possibility, but I really don't know anyone here.  There was shamefully little in some of the 1840s-1870s "years in sports" before I worked there in August. --P64. 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar !
PS : The name 'oddball' may sound odd but the citation reads The Oddball Barnstar may be awarded to an editor who creates a particularly fine article regarding a subject that is odd, whimsical, or is otherwise something that one wouldn't expect to find in more traditional encyclopedias. :-) Tintin (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Re. history of Indian teams, I have two excellent books on Tamil Nadu cricket ( & ), a book on Bombay cricket which does not touch a great deal upon on the history and a not particularly detailed one on Kerala. Karnataka had a book about it recently, but I don't have it. There are books about other teams but I think most are statistical compilations.


 * So at the moment there is enough material to write about TN and Kerala but it is the enormity of the task that prevents me from making an attempt. The work on TN would involve compressing two books which are more than 600 pages, and most of this material is about things which I don't have much first hand knowledge. It is the same about many cricketers too. I have a biography each of CK and Lala Amarnath, plus a lot of material scattered around other cricket books, but am hesitant to make a start because I seriously doubt whether I would be to do justice to them ! Tintin (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kent County Cricket Club
Is Evans is the one who is being interviewed in the photo in that article ? Nobody in that photo looks like Evans. Tintin (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Evans is definitely not the man being interviewed (no idea who that is) but he might be the one second right standing next to Peter West, who is the interviewer. But as you say it doesn't really look like him. This must have been long after Evans retired. I don't know who posted the image but I presume it's his own shot, probably from the 1970s. --BlackJack | talk page 08:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I just spotted this discussion. Evans is definitely the cricketer second from right, and I'd estimate the picture in the mid to late 1960s, because by about 1970 Evans had grown substantial mutton-chop sideburns (it looks like he's started growing them in this picture, but they're not at their full luxuriance yet). Also the other people in the photo look 1960s rather than anything much later. Surely the cricketer on the right is Jim Laker and I don't think the interviewer is Peter West, who I remember having very smooth, unruffle-able, Brylcreemed hair. I think it looks like Frank Bough. Is the chap being interviewed Doug Wright? Or Fred Ridgway? I don't have a picture of Ridgway and the only one I can find of Wright looks a bit like this one, but only a bit. Johnlp 11:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I found a picture of Ridgway, and it definitely isn't him! Wright is likely, as he's wearing a Kent sweater, and your thought that it might be an International Cavaliers game is a good one, because I remember they were televised on BBC2 in the late 1960s before the advent of the Sunday League. Evans and Laker certainly played for them. So did Bert Sutcliffe of New Zealand, who looked a bit like our mystery chap, but I can't think why Sutcliffe would wear a Kent sweater. Johnlp 14:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It suddenly looks the obvious explanation when the 1960s is mentioned. It says in the image that it was taken in 1991. It assumed it to be true and did not even consider the possibility that the person who looks like Laker could be Laker ! Tintin (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshire CCC
I have reverted your removal of 'Notable players' and I want to explain why. This is an established part of the article. Therefore, it should not be removed without discussion on the Talk page. By all means put up your reasoning and see if you get support. I fully agree that the list needs a spring clean (I have adjusted it in accordance with your examples) and should be delighted if you would like to take a more thorough look at it. TerriersFan 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Great work on the article - well done. TerriersFan 13:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Help fight systematic bias
Dear BlackJack,

I would like to draw your attention to the discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Popsicle. If you are interested in helping to counter systematic bias towards North America, and instead establish Wikipedia as an international website, then please feel welcome to contribute with your opinions. Thank you. EuroSong talk 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned Christmas Island stamp?
Hey, was Image:Christmas Island 001.gif supposed to be used somewhere? It shows up as an apparent orphan. An article using it was vandalized perhaps? (I've started adding links to the article(s) on the image page, to help vandalism detection.) Stan 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: W G Grace
Jack,

First, I apologise for calling your actions "stupid". It was completely wrong of me to do so. I have removed that comment from WT:CRIC: unfortunately, I can't remove it from Grace's page edit history.

On the rest, I'm afraid you won't get me to agree with you. I understand your view on dots after initials, although I don't agree with it, but the issue isn't about that. It's about whether it's permissible to change an article from an accepted format because of stylistic preferences. Even if you dislike the "W. G. Grace" style, you must admit that other editors take exactly the opposite view. In that situation, long-standing Wikipedia rulings forbid changing the article to one's personal preference, because it leads to edit wars.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oxford and Cambridge Cricket
Thanks for your contributions to the article on The University Match (cricket). I like the paragraphs that you've written on the early history of Oxford and Cambridge cricket, but I wonder whether they wouldn't fit better within Oxford University Cricket Club and Cambridge University Cricket Club? JH 17:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Hello John. I didn't realise the CUCC and OUCC articles were so small. I'll make a note to add to them in due course. Do you think a list of results would help the University Match article?"


 * Thanks. I think that the CUCC and OUCC pages would be the best places for general history of the clubs, as opposed to specific University Match history. Yes, a list of results would be good, preferably in the same style as has been used for the Gentleman v Players results. But that's quite a big undertaking, so will have to wait until I have the time. JH 08:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The list of results is now well under way. I've got all the dates and venues of the matches, copied and pasted from Cricketarchive, and all the results from the list in Playfair. I'm now going through each scorecard from Cricketarchive to get the winning margin, as well as making notes on any notable individual performances. I find that as I work my way through, my notes on each match are tending to get longer, which is the main reason why I've so far only reached 1914. JH 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

English cricket pages
Could you put these pages in your watchlist? I would think that you would want to know if these pages you are spending time creating have been changed or updated or vandalized, it won't clutter up your recent watchlist when there aren't changes, and it also helps keep it off an administrative list of pages that have no one watching them—as they are more susceptible to vandalism. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:CRIC
..don't tell me you're leaving....Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and this surely is not an important enough issue to consider such a drastic step. Tintin (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not leaving Wikipedia but I am no longer going to be involved in the cricket project's discussions or activities. I object to the way that a private disagreement, which I thought had been settled amicably, has been blown across the project talk page. I am not convinced that the project is useful in any case because it is heavily focused on the present. Only a handful of members are doing anything re the game's history and heritage. A recent discussion about the Ashes was very revealing in that respect.

I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia's cricket content as an independent member and concentrate on historical articles, but as part of a wider sports history approach which is interesting me. If anyone wishes to contact me on an individual basis, I will be glad to help them if I can. --BlackJack | talk page 11:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you feel that way, and apologise unreservedly if anything I have said has caused offence. We really do value your contributions.  For what it is worth, it is entirely possible to be involved in WP:CRIC without being listed as a participant. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not what anyone has said. I have had reservations about the value of the "cricket project" for a long time and these can be summed up by pointing out its failure (apart from a few individuals) to address cricket's heritage and history; and the failure to perform valuable and useful research. Regurgitating stuff from current media about the last couple of seasons is not useful to researchers or general readers who are using Wikipedia to try and find out more about cricket than what they can read in today's paper or what they saw on TV last weekend. The sport did not begin with Botham.

My objective is to use Wikipedia as an accessible storage medium for information that has effectively been "lost" given that it exists in old newspapers, rare books and dusty archives which are all but inaccessible to the man in the street. Cricket is one sport that lends itself to such a pursuit admirably because of its age, history, culture and its stock of archives. I am not here to write about alleged "celebrities"; or to tell the world about Richie Benaud the commentator whilst failing to mention what a great player he was; or to dredge up recent and largely irrelevant drivel about Cronje; or to write volumes of useless contemporary material that is readily available on more relevant sites that are focused on current or recent events.

If the "cricket project" wanted to do something worthwhile, instead of wasting acres of space with coverage of the 2005 season and thus duplicating the contemporary media, why didn't they perform some real research among genuine archives and provide a category about, say, the 1905 season in which there was also an Ashes series?

From now on, as I wrote above, I will be concentrating on the historical aspects of sport, cricket in particular, and I will be looking to form a dedicated sports history project with membership open to all genuine historians. --BlackJack | talk page 06:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hear what you say - and that is why you are such a valuable (and valued) contributor. I suspect that more of our readers want to read about in the 2005 Ashes series than the series in 1905, but I agree that our coverage is heavily skewed to recent events, and it would be nice to have a better historical context.  Sad to say, many of us don't have access to the rare books and dusty archives, which is why we rely on the websites to such an extent, and why we need contributors with those resources to help us where they can.  -- ALoan (Talk) 09:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Am I allowed to say welcome back? Sam Vimes | Address me 18:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI
There is a puzzle at User_talk:Tintin1107. Tintin (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fascinating material, Tintin. I'm afraid I can't help much as I don't have any useful sources.  I'm amazed that the details seem to have been lost and I wonder if everything was agreed by one of the "gentlemen's agreements" that were so readily used in those days?  I shall keep an eye on it, however.  All the best.  --BlackJack | talk page 16:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack Hobbs
Re this edit, I think there should be a mention of Grace's record because that is generally considered the reason why he was awarded a second CoY. The Wisden article, while not specific about it, mentions the 16 hundreds etc and then says that "these achievements, however, notable as they were, counted for little compared with Hobbs' triumph in first equalling and then heading the number of centuries which stand to the credit of W.G.Grace.". Tintin (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The intro here (don't know whether it is taken from Wisden) does say that "the Five Cricketers of the Year were dropped in favour of one player, this time Jack Hobbs, in recognition of his overtaking WG Grace as the most prolific centurymaker of all time." Tintin (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was trying to make the same point at the same time, and got an edit conflict. :) JH 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are both right. I should have left that in: my mistake. Someone brought champagne onto the field at Taunton even though Hobbs was a very modest drinker. There has been some controversy about WG's total because some in the ACS think two of them were scored in minor matches (but the same is said of two by Hobbs as well, though they were in 1931). All the best. --BlackJack | talk page 21:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see that the Wiki Grace article goes with 124, though Wisden sticks with 126. But I think that whichever figure you accept, Hobbs overtook it in 1925. JH 21:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember it caused a row between ACS and Wisden in about 1982. The Wisden editor referred to the celebrations at Taunton and said something to the effect of "how dare the ACS suggest that event might as well not have happened".  --BlackJack | talk page 21:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Trafford Cricket Ground
I have reverted this page move for the moment while a discussion is ongoing on the talk page. This new title does not, in fact, appear in the official address here. There would also be a big pile of links to fix for any move here. I am hoping for a range of views to be posted. In the address it is called County Ground. What is your source that Cricket Ground is the official title, please? I am open to persuasion that your move is correct but please leave it as it is for the moment pending agreement. TerriersFan 02:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir Richard Hadlee
Just a FYI - He was in fact knighted whilst still playing. --LiamE 18:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again

 * Hello Jack. I see you've been having a few problems while I've been away working hard.  I'd like to spend more time on this site now I'm closer to home again and - yes - I'm still studying the GB stamps.  I'm hoping to pull some material together about it before long.
 * The Grace article. I most certainly would recommend Eric Midwinter's book - you can get it from Amazon at a reasonable price.  I didn't expect the title to stay for very long but I think they could at least have discussed it first.  Never mind.  I agree with you some people in that project are out of order.
 * It's fine pointing out a Wikipedia policy and doing so as an individual editor but coming along and reckoning to have some clout because of a project consensus is just false pretences. Reprehensible really as a new editor would be completely taken in.  They want sorting.  Anyway, can't stop long this evening but I'll be back again shortly.  Best wishes.  --AlbertMW 18:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Albert. I will buy the book.  Best regards.  --BlackJack | talk page 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Somerset County Cricket Club
Bottom of the table a record 12 times (plus one shared wooden spoon),  : Where does Northants stand ? Tintin (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Actually it could be 12 because the CI article seems to have been written after 2005 (from the list of sponsors) while Somerset collected one more this year. Tintin (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Surrey county cricket teams
I enjoyed reading this article. I was wondering about the list of references, though. Thirteen seems an awful lot. Did you really make use of all of them in writing the article (or anticipate doing so in future expansion of it)? If not, it might focus things if the number was reduced. At the moment it's hard to see the wood for the trees. JH 20:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're doing a great job. It sounds as though you've got enough work planned to keep you busy for the next year or two! JH 08:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1969 English cricket season
I've added the "prod" template to the article 1969 English cricket season, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:1969 English cricket season. If you remove the dated prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Gene Nygaard 20:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Surrey County Cricket Club
I'm puzzled as to why you have moved Surrey's B&H wins to go under "Other Honours". If even the Twenty-Twenty competition wins go in the main list of honours, then I can't see why the B&H shouldn't do so as well. Also (and I see that you have done this for other counties as well) you have renamed their NatWest Trophy wins as C & G Trophy wins. It seems to me that doing so is seriously misleading. I know that they are effectively the same competition, but I don't see how you can use a name that didn't yet exist. How about restoring the name NatWest Trophy, but adding a footnote "Subsequently renamed the C&G Trophy"? Or even putting "NatWest Trophy/C&G Trophy"? (With "Gillette Cup" as well perhaps.( JH 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Honours
Thanks for your message.

''Re the B&H, I'm open to offers. Now that you've seen my rationale, if you still think it should go back in the main section I'll move it as I'm not bothered. It's just that I think, long-term, people will eventually relegate it as it is obsolete.''

I think that, as a major competition for over thirty years, it belongs in the main Honours section. It's not like some short-lived trophy that only a subset of teams competed for, such as the Tilcon Trophy. Putting it in the Other Honours section would lead people to assume that it was in some way inferior to the other competitions, which during its existence wasn't the case. In a sense, the pre-1890 Championship could be considered "obsolete", but those titles - quite rightly, in my view - are included in the main honours section.

I'm happy to have a forum about all this on the WikiProject page but it's one of those things that needs doing first so people can look at it and then decide.

Discussing it on the Wikiproject page would probably be a good idea. As for the name to use for the Knock-out Cup (except that this season they removed most of the KO element!), would putting "Gillette Cup/NatWest Trophy/C&G Trophy" in the honours list be too unwieldy?

''Thanks for writing to me again, John. I'm always glad to hear from you as you take a historic view of the game. All the best.''

Thanks for the kind words. I always enjoy "talking" with you too. All the best. JH 08:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Found this line in Essex County Cricket Club : "Bailey, who later graced Test Match Special for many years, is generally considered with Andrew Flintoff to have been one of England's two best all rounders since Wilfred Rhodes." I know you don't like ITB, but this isn't fair :-) Tintin (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't enjoy the match much because it was against Australia :-) Tintin (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy with the revised Honours format. I think it's very clear. Thanks. :) JH 17:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

1965 English cricket season
This article seems to be missing. I wondered whether it was an oversight, or whether you just hadn't got round to it yet. I'm very impressed by your industry! These articles must have meant a lot of work. They will be a valuable resource. Thanks for doing them. JH 20:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Floor or foot ? Tintin (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

W. G. Grace & F. R. Spofforth
Hi, BlackJack.

In a Usenet discussion (see below), we've been delving deeply into the infamous run-out of Sammy Jones by W. G. Grace in the 1882 Oval Test Match. This, of course, is believed to have been the event that inspired Fred Spofforth to take his seven for 44 (to add to his first-innings seven for 46) in the England second innings, bowling them out for 77 and winning the match for Australia by seven wickets. I brought up the question of the relationship between Spofforth and Grace, and also that of Grace and the umpire who gave Jones out, namely Bob Thoms. John Hall told me that, although he couldn't really help, he knew that you seemed to be quite knowledgeable of the Nineteenth Century game and referred me to you. I'd greatly appreciate your help in the aforementioned regard. Link to Usenet thread: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/b430bc08e2372e42/c495dbecea39a910. By the way, I've just opened my Wikipedia account, so now you know where to find me. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 11:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Re Grace & Spofforth. I'm afraid I know little more about that incident than you've already described.  WG was not well like by the Australians because of his mercenary attitude when he went on tour there some years earlier and the run out of Jones was yet another in  along line of dubious actions by him.  It certainly does seem to have fired up the Australians but it is questionable if they would not have won anyway without the incident.  Sorry I can't be of more help but actually it's the 18th century that is my special area of interest.  Best regards.  --BlackJack | talk page 15:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't be able to cite a few examples of the long-running bad blood to which you refer, would you? I know about the Midwinter kidnap, but is there anything else? By the way, who would you recommend as the contributor to whom I should go for help on the matter of Grace's relationships with Spofforth and Thoms? Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 11:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Robertson-Glasgow
Hey BlackJack I know you meant well by your message on User:Robertson-Glasgow but that is his personal userpage. If he wishes to leave it blank and as a red link that is his choice; I have reverted your edits to his userpage. If you wish to leave him a message you may do so on his talk page. Thanks! Mkdw talk 09:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know what you mean. I wish I had someone to help me get started on my userpage, but I guess it turn out alright. Mkdw talk 09:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Email
Jack, I see you haven't enabled email on your user account. Is it possible for you to do so? &mdash; Moondyne 14:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

County Championship table
Jack, I've added a Championship table to a random one of your cricket season articles: the 1964 season. If you reckon the style and positioning is all right, I can probably generate a few more over the next few days when I have time. I've also added leading batsmen and bowlers to 1930 and 1951, aiming to pick the top five English players for each season, but also adding in any touring players where they qualify. Again, I'd value your opinion. Johnlp 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Lob bowling
I am considering changing Simpson-Hayward's description in the underarm bowling from "last of the lob bowlers" to the "last great lob bowler", because Trevor Molony is really the last. Brodribb calls S-H the "last outstanding lob bowler", so I guess it is okay. I am also about to add a small section on underarm bowling incidents in fcc since the WWI (based entirely on the Brodribb book). Tintin (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Alresford
In your series of articles on 18th century cricket clubs, do you have any plans to do one on Alresford? I've just been rereading Arlott on Cricket, in which there is a chapter about the club. According to Arlott, between about 1770 and 1795 "Alresford was second in Hampshire cricket only to Hambledon, and Hambledon was second to none in the world. Hambledon, though, even in its finest days, was happy to include Alresford players." If you'd rather, I'd be happy to write a paragraph or two myself. JH 18:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

''Hi John. I'd love to see an article about the Alresford club. I'm still researching the early 18th century and I don't have Arlott on Cricket so I suggest it would be best if you were to create the article using that book as the main source. John Arlott came from Hampshire, didn't he?''

I've now got something written. I'll call it Alresford Cricket Club, with links from the New Alresford and Old Alresford articles. Yes, John Arlott was very much a Hampshire man, born and bred. (As is John Woodcock. It's remarkable that two of the three leading English cricket journalists of the 1960s and 1970s (the third being Swanton) should have come from the same county.)

''I have Alresford playing major matches from 1779, when they played Berkshire, and they were certainly eminent into the mid-1780s. Tom Taylor and RA Veck seem to have been the most famous players and, as you say, they were both first-choice for Hambledon.''

Arlott mentions Alresford playing Hambledon home and away on level terms in 1778. In 1776, "Alresford with three of Waltham and two of Warnford" played "Petersfield and Catherington with the famous Messrs Small, Brett and Barber and H. Bonham Esq." Arlott comments: "...these matches, invariably played for wagers, were based on teams of more or less even strength; and to set three such eminent Hambledon players on the other side means that Alresford must have been immensely powerful." Cricketarchive only has scorecards from 1779 onwards, but Arlott points out that in many cases all we have is an announcement in the press that a match will be taking place, with no scorecard or even result being recorded.

''One thing I've wondered about before is if the Alresford club organised the Hampshire matches on Itchen Stoke Down; rather than Hambledon Club which has always got the credit for organising all Hampshire matches? What do you think?''

Arlott says: "The standing of Alresford... is indicated by the fact that a number of the Hambledon matches - including even major fixtures with England - were played there." So he evidently thought that the matches were organised by Hambledon. He was writing in 1978, so it's possible that new information may have come to light since. JH 19:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's now up. I hope you like it. Please could you add it to your template. About five minutes after it was up, someone flagged the first sentence with "citation needed", when I thought that the combination of my third sentence and the References would have made its justification pretty plain. Anyway, I humoured him. JH 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words and for adding it to the template. I'm afraid I don't know of any info on the Montpelier Club. JH 21:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Jarvis (cricketer)
Why did you remove Jarvis from Category:MCC cricketers? I'm aware he never played a first-class match for MCC, but he did play for them at List A level (against the New Zealanders in 1990), and given that we include players who've only made List A appearances, it seems odd not to deem a List A appearance enough for a category inclusion. Besides, you've left alone his inclusion in Category:Herefordshire cricketers which by definition can't include any first-class games. I'm inclined to replace the MCC cat, but will hold fire for the moment. Loganberry (Talk) 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've now noticed the wider discussion about this at WT:CRIC, so will take my responses there instead. Loganberry (Talk) 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine for Jarvis, but I think you're being harsh on John Human, who played 30 matches for MCC, more than he did for Cambridge University and not too many short of the 41 he played for Middlesex. His MCC span was also longer than that for any other team, and it's mentioned in the text... almost a case of man's inhumanity to Human, if you like. ;-) Johnlp 21:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I gotta ask
Why Bob Taylor for your all-time England and world teams? An odd choice! As a pure wicket keeper surely Evans would get the nod, as keeper / batsman Ames is streets ahead or perhaps even Knott who kept him out of the England team for so long? For the world team you have players like Gilchrist, Clyde Walcott and Andy Flower amongst others. You aren't related by any chance? --LiamE 23:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree on the thinking that the best gloveman should get the test slot. Thats why I never really agreed with Alec Stewart keeping in tests, ODI's he would have been my pick though. Jack Russel was in a different classs as a keeper, and not a bad batsman - imo our best keeper of recent years. Picking Stewart I think we lost out twice, firstly Russel's keeping would have been worth maybe a wicket per test and then the double whammy - as a keeper Alec averaged 34, as a batsman 46 so we lost out on his runs too! To my mind Taylor, Knott and Russel(I have had the pleasure of watching all 3 and playing with Knott) were all first rate keepers and in choosing between them they only differ in batting prowess rather than glove work. Its odd your dad doesnt rate Evans that highly. He'd be worth a place in most teams on entertainment value alone. The more I read about him the more I'm impressed. Can you imagine standing up to Alec Bedser? From cricinfo... "After the 1946-47 tour, Bill O'Reilly wrote that wicket-keeping was the only department where England matched Australia. In 1950-51, according to Trevor Bailey, Evans did not miss a chance, and took one at Melbourne that still amazed Bailey years later, when he caught Neil Harvey standing up to Bedser one-handed, horizontal, and airborne down the leg side off a genuine leg-glance." Now thats what I call keeping. --LiamE 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert Carpenter
Thanks. I noticed yesterday, when looking at players in the Cambridgeshire category, that he had an article but that somehow it had been misplaced in the "Talk" slot rather than where it belonged. So I corrected that, and added a little to the piece whilst I was at it. I was planning to add a little more today, but it's possible that you may already have covered everything. I'll look and see. JH 18:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Lockyer
Thanks for writing a piece about Tom Lockyer. He was one of the Surrey players on my "to do" list, whom now I won't need to do. I must see if I can find amongst my books a reference for the famous story about a boxer seeing his hands, with the fingers all mishapen thanks to inadequate gloves and standing up to fast bowlers, and saying that he would sooner go 15 rounds in the ring than keep wicket, or something to that effect. (I think it was Lockyer, but it could have been another keeper of the period.) JH 21:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just stumbled on this story in a book of AA Thomson's, and it turns out that it refers to Ted Pooley rather than Tom Lockyer. Coincidentally, Pooley is next on my list of Surrey cricketers to write a piece on. Obviously his unfortunate experience in New Zealand will have a prominent place. JH (talk page) 21:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with your "19th century players" project. One seeming omission from the list in the All-England Eleven arilcle seems to be Richard Daft. (If Cricketarchive is to be believed, he played for: Nottinghamshire, Marylebone Cricket Club, Gentlemen, Gentlemen of the North, North of England, Single, All England Eleven, England, Another England Eleven, England Next XIV, Players, Right-Handed, Married, United North of England Eleven, Over 30, R Daft's American XI, Nottinghamshire and Lancashire!) JH 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There's some interesting stuff on Tom Lockyer here: JH 11:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Harry Walker (cricketer)
EV Lucas has written in Jubilee book of cricket (reproduced in the anthology Cricket all his life which is where I read this) that Harry Walker was the inventor of cut. Is this something that has universal acceptance ? Tintin (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Tintin (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Category
Jack, that's fixed. Cheers. &mdash;Moondyne 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian cricket tours of England
Canada played in the World Cup held in England in 1979, sadly being dismissed for 45 in their match against England. I assume that they must also have played some warm-up games, so I wonder whether this should count as a tour? JH 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can certainly help with the 1979 tour, at least for the World Cup matches. I'll check whether the 1980 Wisden has any information about other matches that they may have played. I may be able to help with other tours if they are covered in the Wisdens that I have (the 1964 edition onwards, so long as I can determine the right year(s) without having to look at the contents list of every edition. JH 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've now written a couple of paragraphs on 1979. In the course of my research, I found Cricinfo on Canada's cricket history, which you might find useful. JH 10:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with the History. The first sentence says: British and French settlers spread into Canada during the 15th and 16th centuries. That looks to be at least one century out and probably two, considering that Columbus only discovered the New World at the end of the 15th century (1492) and the Pilgrim Fathers only landed at Plymouth Rock in what is now Massachussetts during the 17th century (1620). JH 16:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Wiki article on Canada, it says: The first permanent European settlements were established by the French at Port Royal in 1605 and Quebec City in 1608, and by the English in Newfoundland, around 1610. Based on that, I think the reference to 16th and 17th centuries could be amended to just say the 17th. JH 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that, going by your category for Canadian cricket tours of England, there were tours in 1974 and 1981. I'll look in the 1975 and 1982 Wisdens and see if they have anything. I see that the category doesn't include 1979, when they visited England for the first ICC Trophy and nanaged to qualify for the World Cup. I agree that it's debatable whether that should count as a tour. JH 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the article on "Cricket in Canada" on pages 1147-8 of the 1982 Wisden, Canada toured Eire and Northern Ireland in May, 1981, but not England. There was much rain. Canada won 1 match, lost 3, had 2 rain-spoilt draws, and 3 matches had no play at all. The article also mentioned that 1785 was listed in historical records as the year in which cricket was first played in Canada, and that plans were in hand to celebrate the bicentenniary in 1985. JH 21:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Page 1021 of the 1975 Wisden mentions the 1974 tour of the United Kingdom, the first for 20 years and the sixth ever. There were 16 games: 5 wins, 5 draws, 6 losses. Five of their matches were against county second XIs and Minor Couties. The NCA was played at Lord's on a rain-affected day. They also played the Club Cricket Conference and DH Robin's XI. No scores or even individual match results are given, unfortunately. The captain was R.J. Stevens. Tony Clarke scored most runs: 478. W. Braithwaite and M. De Souza each took 29 wickets. Please feel free to use any or all of this. JH 21:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * CricketArchive has full scorecards for matches on the 1974 tour here. It also has a page entitled Canada in England 1981, but lists only one match, and that between Ireland and Canada at Belfast! JH 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets avoid sponsors names in article titles
Hi, I have re-moved State Championship to New Zealand first-class cricket championship, because the article covers the history* of first-class competition in New Zealand. "State" is State Insurance, the current naming-rights sponsor for whatever period they have negotiated. There are precedents such as New Zealand national soccer league, which covers all the various incarnations of NZ's top soccer competition since the 1970's. After all, we don't have Emirates Melbourne Cup, do we, although that is currently the 'correct name' of that event. For an even worse example, look at the Australian one-day competition - to find the article a reader has to know who the current sponsor is.

The use of current names when they are not applicable leads to Wikipedia being the source of innacurate statements such as "The Black Caps won the Ford Ranger One Day Cup in 1974-75" (both tea name and competition name are wrong), or "Bevan Congdon played for the Black Caps" - he was well and truly retired before the team took on that name.

An alternative approach would be to create separate articles for each incarnation of a competition (containing only data for the relevant years), but they would still benefit from a generic article to link them together and provide continuity. (Separate articles would make documenting players careers more tedious though). This approach could be developed if the generic article becomes too long.

I a thinking of proposing a Wikipedia policy on this. dramatic 19:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It also needs to include the period from 1864 to the introduction of the Plunket Shield

Dedication C.C
You put this up for speedy deletion (saying in the edit summary that you were opening an AfD), but it's not at all clear why. It's certainly not patent nonsense, as you claimed. If it is indeed a hoax article, then you need to place it at AfD, giving your reasons. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jack, I removed the forum link from the article because the main article in that thread appears in the banglacricket.com history and also as I would like to keep that identity separate from the one here. Tintin (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Commiserations on your RfA
It looks now that your RfA won't achieve consensus at this point in time. The main reasons appear to be the explanation of your understanding of the XfD process and canvassing for participation. The explanation of the deletion process should resolve most questions; the central thrust of the oppose votes was that the number of votes is not as pertinent to the discussion as the quality of the policy-backed 'keep' arguments. You can also be proactive at XfD - 'speedy keep's can be closed by all responsible editors, not just admins, and articles can be rewritten in five days, or at least fleshed-out as stubs with sources provided for expansion once the deadline has past. Trolling on discussions can also be handled in the standard way, with warnings and then attention at WP:AN/I or WP:AIV if your warnings are not heeded. Adminship doesn't involve extra power so much as extra duties - blocking vandals is part of due process, something in which we all participate.

The other objections are easily negated - changing your preferences to force edit summaries can be done in moments and keeping your mentions of your RfA to a minimum is also easy. Canvassing is a definite no-no - no one at RfA likes to see vote-packing, even if it is done with the best of intentions! Don't take this as a knock-back; the people who commented did so because they want you to be the best admin candidate that you can be. Try again in three months or so, keeping the comments in mind from now until Easter, say. I reckon that you will achieve consensus if you follow the constructive criticism. Happy editing and Happy New Year! Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Redux 13:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Allan Fitzgerald
Can you please review this article. It uses too many superlatives in the intro and the last two paragraphs. I have come across his name in passing and read Double Century more than ten years ago, but did not have the impression that he deserves so much praise. Tintin (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bump* Tintin (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Tintin (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan cricket seasons
Good work on the Pakistan cricket seasons, but I have a query. You've given the title of the main first-class competition as the "Qaid-I-Azam Trophy", but all references I can find (including Cricinfo and Cricket Archive) call it the "Quaid-e-Azam Trophy". Is this a mistake? Andrew nixon 12:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's two renditions in English, Andrew. Apart from Wisden, the books I've quoted use Qaid-i-Azam Trophy and I had created the trophy's own article before I realised there was an alternative (I have pointed out the alternative usage in the trophy article).  I believe Qaid is an older version than Quaid.  If you'd rather change it to Quaid as the more recent version I have no objection.  All the best.  --BlackJack | talk page 13:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Indian cricket
Good luck on your Indian cricket. I known there are thousand and thousands of Indian cricketers missing from wikipedia let alone years in Cricket!Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your message I rember seeing an indian cricketer datbase ans there ar emillllllions!!!!! If you are creating cricket histiry articles by country I suggested you could create another small template at the bottom Template:Cricketbycountry. You can use my template Template:Missingfilmsbycountry if you like and adjust to cricket Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started Template:Cricketbycountry for you. You can adjust it appropraitely for history of cricket by country of whatever. I have listed the categories for you to put in below. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There you go something like that to connect each country in history of cricket.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Solent 08:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Tour template
Hey, noticed you edited Template:International cricket tours of England. Personally I think it's a terrible template, trying to put too much in one place. I created a spin-off version for just the West Indies tours as Template:West Indies cricket tours of England‎, which I think is more appropriate. I haven't made all the others (e.g. Australia, South Africa etc) but think it'd be a good idea. What do you reckon? The Rambling Man 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess the permutations are numerous. But, despite the work that would be involved, the result would be far preferable, don't you think?  I'm not sure if the Kenya cricket page benefits from having all the Eng vs Aus test series linked.  Hmm.  Perhaps templates for this might be a step too far?  Wow.  Too complex for a Saturday night, that's for sure...! The Rambling Man 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Samuel Britcher
Actually, the edits to that have different, but similar, IP addresses, and by the summaries and other edits, they are the same person. I would recommend blocking all three by the nature of their contributions. Reywas92 TalkSigs 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is another one:. Can you find someone to block them? Reywas92 TalkSigs 21:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cricket-season-stubs
Not a problem, and at least it's not quite back on the "oversized" list. I should probably have mentioned to you when I'd created those. I'll rerun the 'bot as soon as it's done tagging the latest metric shedload of uncategorised articles. Alai 07:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dozens of cricket stubs for each year
Wondering if the subject matter warrants a seperate article for each year ? As it stands, why not have a single article with content in there for each year? --Oscarthecat 09:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that, I spotted you at work while newpage patrolling, you are certainly nearing some records for page creations per minute! :D SGGH 14:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Postage stamps of Antioquia
I have added a "" template to the article Postage stamps of Antioquia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ygoloxelfer 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is a legitimate stub that will be developed in due course and new messages go to the bottom of the page. What a waste of time.  --BlackJack | talk page 06:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cricket tours ghost articles
IMO, creating articles without any useful content, such as West Indian cricket team in England in 2000, is wrong. When a reader follows a blue link, he expects to see a real article. These articles are just waste of time, they better not exist until someone has the time to make them useful.

BTW: the article New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2006-07 was proposed to speedy delete, because there is no evidence this tour ever existed. --Nitsansh 19:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The tour did exist - in fact, it ended on the day you posted the comment above. Ygoloxelfer 11:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Antioquia postage stamps
OK, here's an alternative solution - instead of deleting the article, I could get rid of this section in the Antioquia article, but putting a link to your article in a 'see also' section at the bottom. That way, it won't just be the same information repeated, as it is now. Ygoloxelfer 11:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Parsees_cricket_team_in_England_in_1886
I am moving this to Parsee_cricket_team_in_England_in_1886 as that looks the more correct version. Tintin 03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am preparing an article about their 1888 tour at the moment. Tintin 06:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cricket History 1816 to 1863
Thanks very much! Looks like you've done most of the work for me. :) JH 09:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Prospect Cricket Club
I thought senility had finally set it as I could not remember finishing this article and publishing it. Then I saw that you had moved it from my sandbox to the real article space. Thanks for thinking it was ready, although it actually is partly unfinished. I guess you have just prompted me to get a rattle on and finish it. Cheers. Pudgey 08:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)