User talk:BlackJack/Archive 6

Earl of Sussex
Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad to see that you've returned. I hope that you will stay around for a while. JH (talk page) 08:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. I'm thinking of rejoining on an occasional basis.  I've been very tied up with other matters for several months but should have more spare time going forward. --BlackJack | talk page 10:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's good news. And thanks for the Barnstar! JH (talk page) 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Richly deserved.  --BlackJack | talk page 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Service Award
Thank you so much for the barnstar which I do not deserve as I have barely started on the site, but it does give me a feeling of encouragement. I notice that you do not have a service award on your page so I am presenting you with the bronze star. I believe you are qualified for this as you made your first edit in July 2005 and I am assuming that you have made well over 12,000 edits. Thank you again.

By the way, I placed it at the top of the page but the contents section gets in the way so I added it to your own barnstars instead. --Jim Hardie (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, Jim. I must admit I've not seen these before but they're a good idea. I passed 12,000 edits a long, long time ago. The total now is 21,370.  No wonder my keyboard is looking a bit worn!  --BlackJack | talk page 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Single wicket
Knowing your interest in single wicket cricket, if you've not seen it already, there is a good article on an 1846 contest between Alfred Mynn and Nicholas Felix on Cricinfo today, here. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Andrew, I'll take a look. Mynn and Felix played a number of games against each other, I believe.  There's quite a lot about single wicket in John Major's book.  All the best.  --BlackJack | talk page 08:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this: Article from The Cricketer, September, 1963 by GD Martineau]. JH (talk page) 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's excellent, John. Thank you.  BlackJack | talk page 03:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Joseph Dennis
Thanks for the message and your interest. As requested, I have added a reference for Sutton's charming volume, The Date-Book of Remarkable and Memorable Events Connected with Nottingham and its Neighbourhood: 1750-1850. Sutton was a talented author, historian, editor, printer, stationer and journalist who wrote extensively about everything to do with Nottingham. He contributed to The Gentlemen's Magazine and was editor of the eye-opening tome Annals of crime in the Midland Circuit: From Authentic Records. We are in his debt. Best, Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Somehow I forgot to add to the above his most important contribution, Nottingham Cricket Matches. But I see that you have already included it and its publisher in the relevant articles.
 * Do you have Ashley-Cooper's Nottinghamshire Cricket and Cricketers? If not, I'll try to find the time -- unfortunately, I don't have much -- to embroider Dennis's article with it myself.
 * Kindest,

It is remarkably rare for a book that wasn't strictly a limited edition. Last copy I saw in a sale fetched £140!Longrunup (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Would that I could find an edition of Cricket in my cretinous corner of the globe. I see that the ACS has been good enough to digitise a few editions from 1882 -- but, annoyingly, not that which covered the Test Match.  If you have any influence in those circles, some pointed rib-nudging would be greatly appreciated. Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry Bentley (cricketer)
There's now a slight disconnect between the 68 games quoted in the article, and the article's CricketArchive reference, which gives 66. So a citation for the 68 figure might be a good idea. JH (talk page) 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it needs references to both of the CricketArchive pages that list his matches. This is a problem with CA, unfortunately, when you have players who took part in the "major matches" of the 18th century and then in "first-class matches" from 1801.  In addition, this player was in the 1802 game that has only recently been discovered; CA have not integrated it into their match numbering system so it is among their "other first-class matches".
 * I've just started looking at players who were active around 1800 so I suppose this will become a syndrome. I'll make sure there are links to each matchlist page where it does.
 * I can't understand how any publisher, even in the early 19th century, would allow a book to go out with a title like Bentley's!
 * Thanks again. Best regards.  --BlackJack | talk page 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, that book title doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, does it. :) It might be an idea for articles on players whose careers spanned the year 1800 to include a footnote to the effect that that CA's "first-class" matches only include matches from 1801, matches before that year being archived as "major matches". JH (talk page) 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I'll come up with a wording and use it for each one.  According to my own statistics there are 79 players who crossed the divide.  They include famous players like Beldham, Walker, Harris, Wells, Hammond, Boxall, Purchase (who began in 1773), Fennex and Beauclerk.
 * This is not including any who might have made their sole post-1800 appearance in the 1802 match which, like CA, I haven't assimilated yet :-) Regards.  --BlackJack | talk page 06:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AWB
Have a look at this sometime. --BlackJack | talk page 05:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Press release
The press release is stated and dated in the ACS Journal. Being a press release, it's not made generally available. The source is a quotation AND the press release from the originating organisation and appears in the Journal with the relevant times etc. It did not appear in the general press due I suppose to its esoteric nature. Anyone wishing to check accesses that periodical. It is not self referential as it is a statement both of fact and it prints in full the provenance88.109.66.85 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC) should be Fieldgoalunit (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) forgot to log in.


 * Seems fair enough to me. Do you have the date of that journal and the date of the release?  If we enter those into the citation they should suffice.  Thanks again for your help.  --BlackJack | talk page 05:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone has found an online reference which fits the bill. Job done.  --BlackJack | talk page 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

References.
On the point of references, your 1800-1815 is vague is respect of references. The excellent articles on early cricket reference your own work which in academic terms is incorrect. You compiled that work from other sources. One should normally refer to the first printed appearance. Sources are orginal(first hand work), Primary and Secondary. There is little original research on the project though a lot of hard work through P & S sources, especially by yourself. In a way the copious use of cricketarchive is wrong. Mr Bailey took a lot, not all, of the scores from other sources where they were amended by other people. The career record of say Woolley is the result mainly of the work on the ACS Kent book a good few years ago(which never mentioned it sources!). If you see where I'm going, you cannot be pedantic to the extent you are when you, reasonably, use some second hand sources - who doesn't. One might say this of Haygarth of course and whether Britcher filched his from another text has faded away in time. We must assume he was limited in his travelling and, a point I often make to Keith Warsop, may have missed chunks of unrecorded scores in the nether regions of the UK where the game may have been played such as mid-Wales(organised matches in 1830's & 40's no scores given before that except odd 1820's matches through Slaney's little book - surely something before then with several great Houses in the area). There is a book listed in Padwick of scores for Shropshire around this period but it is supposed now to refer to a later, handwritten book of scores from 1840-9. I wonder what is undiscovered.

Your articles on WP have meant that a vital part of cricket history is in the public domain. Some of them are without question the best articles on sport on this frankly variable project. I know full well you have the ACSCJ which contains the ICC announcement, please don't be silly about such things and demean your excellent, well written accounts of current knowledge of this period. Read together, it is fair to say that no other book is, or could be as comprehensive in its collection and dissemination of information on this vital period. And, as I say, it is far better written than dear old Major Bowen could ever manage.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree about the 1801-15 article. It needs a lot of work and is still only a stub, really.  I can't decide if it will have the potential to be divided up again: it was originally 15 separate articles; just as 1816-1825 was ten articles at first.  I am actually doing some research into 1801-15 at present to identify its debutants and I've reached 1814.  I'd like to create articles about all the notable players from 1787 to 1815 as we are very sparse in that period on WP.  I think we've done okay up to 1786 and just need to do some tidying up, although I still come across topics that have been missed: e.g., John Capon, which was a new piece the other day.  I want to do something about Henry Rowett too, but it won't amount to much.
 * There is a point about sources on WP which is that editors are required to state the source where they personally found the material, even if that source refers to an earlier and more authoritative one. Most editors do that so you will at times see some quite bizarre sources being quoted (I once saw The Sun quoted as the source for a Test match!).  But I have often referred to the primary source even without seeing it: I trust Mr Buckley and if he says he got it from the St James Chronicle then that's fine by me!
 * I think CricketArchive and CricInfo are extensively used because they are online and so easily verified, WP being very strict about verifiable sources. There have been cases where CricketArchive has been used to prove a player's existence when someone tried to delete the article for notability reasons.  In fact, quoting CricketArchive in a biography doesn't help the reader much except to provide a statistical summary.  A biography needs more about the man himself and the style of his play than his figures.
 * You make a good point about the early scorers. Britcher I believe was limited to London and I doubt if he made much effort to compile scores from elsewhere.  Haygarth did make that effort.  One thing that always strikes me in S&B is that he so often mentions, bemoans even, that another source exists and has different information.  We are in the same boat as him: we have to make a choice about who to believe.  Britcher is one of the options and sometimes the only option.
 * I'm afraid I personally don't have any copies of the Cricket Statistician any more. I gave them all away to another enthusiast who was interested in them.  I still have several of the series and matchlist booklets.
 * I think it is important to get this sort of information, as you say, into the public domain. This is the beauty of the internet.  The opportunity is there to get everything worth knowing off the musty shelves and into a repository where almost everyone can see it without hunting high and low.
 * Thank you for your kind words about my articles but there are several good contributors on here, especially the likes of Jhall1, Tintin, Blnguyen, Dweller, Loganberry and The Rambling Man.
 * All the best. --BlackJack | talk page 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rare Books
An interesting aside on this is the first part of WR Chignalls history of Worcs. It is meant to be rare and changes hands for big money but a shop in Evesham had 4 copies last year at £20 each.Longrunup (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's ironic. I used to live in Winchcombe once upon a time, just down the road from Evesham.  I've heard of Chignall and I'll make a note to see if I can get a copy.  There's a guy on here, User:Loganberry, who has done marvellous work on Worcestershire and its old cricketers.  I think we have an article about every Worcestershire first-class player thanks to him.  --BlackJack | talk page 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Beldam or Beldham?
Back when I was a lad, it was always "Beldham". Then it seemed to be decided that it ought to be "Beldam". I take it from your recent edit that "Beldham" is now back in favour again? JH (talk page) 16:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. George Beldam is interesting, as he is credited with being the first to take genuine action photographs of cricketers rather than the posed shots that had been used hitherto. JH (talk page) 09:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Round in circles
In Australian cricket team in England in 1880, in the "Only Test" is a Main Article link to 1880 Australia v England series. That link now redirects to English cricket team in Australia in 1880-81, which in turn offers a redirect to Australian cricket team in England in 1880. Some straightening out is needed! JH (talk page) 20:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. My head is going round in circles after this lot.  What a mess.  I took that main article xref out.  I'd better see if there's any more.  --BlackJack | talk page 20:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ashes series template
Hi BlackJack,

I noticed you reverted my (and others') alterations to the template Template:Ashes series with this edit message:

"rv to original format by User:Moondyne to restore this template's intended use in compliance with WP Cricket convention".

You also appear to have removed it from use on a number of Ashes series pages (1948, 1989, 2002-03, 2005, 2006-07 and 2009)

Would you care to expand on your reasons/provide some relevant links?

Thanks, Juwe (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Juwe. The template was originally designed by Moondyne as a preceding and following box but it was changed without consultation to a collection of series dates, the vast majority of which are inevitably redlinks.  Even the few that had blue links were mainly redirects.  As for removing the template from individual articles, it is in many cases superfluous as another box exists and it would be better to expand use of this other box across all relevant articles (it is in fact rarely used because most of the articles are still stubs).
 * On a more general point, a few articles had been created which did not comply with WP Cricket convention in terms of naming or categorisation. As a result they were outside the mainstream and would not easily be found by readers: I actually discovered them when I was looking at one of the 18th century categories!  I have not deleted any of this work, which is all useful though in need of thorough editing, but I have brought it into the WP Cricket structure by means of redirects and copies.
 * The non-Ashes series template needs some further attention because of redlinks and redirects. I didn't have time to do that last night.
 * Regards. --BlackJack | talk page 06:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi BlackJack,
 * Thanks for your reply. I now see how the original purpose of the template was different to what it turned into. Like you say, there is a problem with redlinks and articles being only stubs, but hopefully with time this will be solved. Once the number of Ashes series pages increases, I think that there should be a place for both the original template and a new template based on what the template had become. For example, it is useful to be able to go straight from the 1948 Ashes page to the 1989 page or to see all the years Ashes series have been held while on any Ashes series page. I also now understand your point about duplication, although it seems this "other box" is just a bunch of code on each individual page which imitates the Ashes series template, rather than being a template itself. Maybe this code should be replaced by the Ashes series template.


 * Regarding the categorisation, I have noticed that many cricket categories are a bit of a mess and difficult to navigate. This could definitely do with cleaning up so that it is easy to locate all cricket (templates eg) which exist, grouped together in a sensible way. As you suggest, many categories seem incomplete, poorly grouped and difficult to find. You have referred to the "WP cricket convention" for naming and categorisation, but I can't locate anywhere which states what the convention for categorisation is. WP:Cricket gives a few guidelines on conventions for naming articles, but nothing about categorisation other than to "maintain an efficient and navigable category system". If there isn't a set of guidelines explicitly stating how things should be categorised (such as in the following example), then there should be:
 * "Cricket templates should have the following subgroups: navboxes, team templates etc..."
 * "Team templates have the subgroups: national teams, English county teams, Australian state teams etc..."


 * All the best, Juwe (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Juwe. Something I should have mentioned earlier is that there is another template into which the Ashes series have been integrated as a child section.  This is Template:Non-Ashes Australia v England Test series‎.  I've gone through this and directed all redlinks to the tour articles but I've left alone the six or seven links to existing series articles (e.g., 1948 series).  As and when further series articles are created, the template can easily be adapted.  There are still half a dozen redlinks because some of the tour articles were deleted a year or so ago due to being "insufficient stubs": we should have done some work on them but the anti-cricket brigade beat us to it.
 * It would be best to use this template in all the England v Australia articles. It is better than the international tours of Australia one which is too big.  There used to be an international tours of England one but it was unwieldy and I think it got deleted.
 * I agree with everything you say about the guidelines in WP:Cricket which are often woolly (for which I am one of those responsible). We had a discussion on the project talk page many moons ago about categories throughout the history and competition subjects in particular.  We came to broadly agree on the present structure for tours so that the reader can find a tour via both the host and touring countries: hence we have category:Australian cricket tours abroad and category:International cricket tours of England, both of which will lead you to an article about the 1961 tour, for example.
 * All the best. --BlackJack | talk page 10:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi BlackJack,


 * As you can see from the history, I actually created that "Non-Ashes Australia v England Test series" template to split it off from (what was then) the Ashes series template and display the non-Ashes Test series more prominently (while still having the Ashes Tests available by clicking "show"). I simultaneously updated the "Ashes series" template so that it hid the non-Ashes Tests and displayed the Ashes series on top of the navbox and unhidden (until then both were displayed unhidden). Basically the templates were (until your revert) 2 sides of the same coin.


 * While I recognise that categories in general might be useful to some people, the main use for categories to me is to see which tools, ie templates, are available for editing pages. If I want to find a wikipedia page about a particular tour or other aspect of cricket I can do so quite easily by searching the appropriate terms in wikipedia, or failing that in google. However, if I want to edit a cricket-related wikipedia page, it is extremely useful to know which potentially-relevant templates exist but extremely difficult to find out unless there is a well-organised and comprehensive directory of such templates. Unfortunately, this page: category:Cricket, isn't prominently displayed (eg on WP:Cricket) and doesn't even include this page: category:Cricket templates, which isn't prominently displayed either and isn't very comprehensive or well-organised. For instance, there doesn't seem to be any clarity on whether the first level of categorisation should be by types of templates (eg navboxes, infoboxes, scorecard templates etc) or by types of teams and the various competitions they compete in (eg English county teams, ODI teams and tournaments etc). Without a well-organised structure it is difficult to know which sub-directory to look in to get to a potentially-useful template and without a comprehensive directory it is hard to know if a useful template already exists, even if you haven't found it.


 * Regards, Juwe (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Juwe, I didn't look at the history of the non-Ashes template. I think it satisfies both needs and should be used throughout. It is very useful to see which series are Ashes and which are not as it isn't simply a case of post-1882, as many people believe.

I agree that the cricket project has underestimated templates. I've created a few myself and I see one of them was deleted while I was away from the site in recent months. I think the ideal for a reader is a combination of categories and templates. Categories have their uses for people who are browsing general topics, such as tours of one country by a particular team, but templates are right there on a relevant page with links to similar topics. Extremely useful to the reader. For example, I wrote a whole load of pages about 18th century venues and it seemed a logical step to have a template on each page that linked to all the other 18th century venues (including Lord's, no less).

I did a similar thing with 18th century players but that is the one that got deleted (because it was "ugly"!). There seems to be a mindset on here whereby players have to be related to their nationalities and clubs but not to their times. I do not understand that sort of narrow thinking at all. In cricket, the period in which a player was active is of paramount importance because of prevailing conditions. Grace's actual batting average was no better than one of the nonentities who played for the woeful England team of the 1990s but what sort of average would, say, Atherton have had on the uncertain pitches of the 1870s? And, conversely, what would WG have done on the modern flat tracks?

Infoboxes are a sore point with me. They were initiated a long time ago with the idea of showcasing statistical material which is often disputed or uncertain. I would do away with them completely but I'm afraid the consensus is probably in their favour. I recently removed one from William Beldham because it contained nonsense whereby the facts of the player's whole career had not been checked out.

Anyway, I've added category:Cricket templates to category:Cricket. It has more right to be there than the trivia in category:Cricket culture, for example. Templates certainly need a higher profile and greater use.

I think this has a lot of mileage and we can do much more with templates. Best regards. --BlackJack | talk page 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi BlackJack,
 * Just a quick reply to your latest points.
 * I absolutely agree about the relevance of time periods the inclusion of referenecs to them in cricket articles.
 * Regarding categories, I can see that they are generally useful to some people and should definitely be retained. I was just giving my thoughts on what I personally find useful.
 * I would be in the camp in favour of infoboxes as they can be very useful (as a reader) for quickly obtaining key facts about players, teams or tournaments. For example, wikipedia is a good place to compare Test batting averages of various modern-day players. However, I do understand your point about infoboxes and how facts about cricket in the 18th and 19th centuries might be less certain than facts about cricket today, especially considering that there was less formalisation of the rules of cricket and the categorisation of matches. Today it is clear when a match is a Test match, a first-class match, a List A match etc... I imagine that such things were a bit hazier 200 years ago.
 * Finally, regarding my "non-Ashes" template, I agree that it does a reasonable job for all Australia-England series. However, there was a reason that I created it, and that was to have the appropriate asymmetry (between Ashes series and non-Ashes series) on the appropriate page, such that "non-Ashes" was more prominent on non-Ashes series pages and "Ashes" was more prominent on Ashes series pages (using the template that you reverted). It would seem a bit strange to have "non-Ashes series" emphasised on the page of a particular Ashes series. Hence I think that it is appropriate to have 2 templates (plus the original template that was the catalyst for this discussion) for England-Australia Tests.
 * BTW, I got your message on my talk page about the project scope and templates. I will contribute something to that discussion (although I will need to have a look at what cricket templates actually exist before I do so) and so this is probably a good place to end this 2-person discussion, unless you particularly want to respond to something I have just said.
 * All the best,
 * Juwe (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Templates on WP:CRIC#SCOPE
Hi BlackJack, I think for WP:CRIC I think there should be 2 main points about templates, something along the lines of: Obviously the first goal is an ongoing one and the second goal (as well as being ongoing) requires a fair amount of work dealing with existing templates. On the category page itself I noticed this: which I personally don't think is the right way to go. This approach leads to the mixing of subcategories of templates with actual navbox templates and is not a logical, clear structure. Instead I think that there should be (something like) types of templates (eg navboxes, infoboxes and whatever other types there are). The navboxes could then be subcategorised into "national team navboxes", "first-class team navboxes" etc, and the first-class team navboxes subdivided into "English County navboxes", "Australian State navboxes" etc, (some possible further subcategorisation if applicable), with the actual navboxes present only once you get to this stage (I realise that some degree of organisation has been done, but not in a comprehensive and systematic way). However, in order to have the best and most sensible structure, it is necessary to have a list of all the cricket-related templates that exist, and it might be a tricky process to locate all such templates.
 * create and maintain templates useful for editing and standardising cricket-related articles
 * update and maintain category:Cricket templates as the comprehensive, well-structured and navigable category for all cricket-related templates

Regards, Juwe (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Juwe. I'll update the scope to include your two points above which I entirely agree with.
 * I've been looking through the template categories and it reminds me of what the overall cricket categories were like two years ago before I overhauled them. With the main categories, I relied on the subject as the key sort factor (e.g., history, country, biography, admin, terminology, etc.) but I think you are right that here we need to sort by subject within type.  I agree that infoboxes need to be kept strictly separate from navigationals, even if they provide the same information.
 * I expect there are many stray templates that are in non-template categories but I think all we can do is work within those categories and collect the strays as and when we spot them.
 * You've probably noticed WP:CRIC which includes a short list (it should be much longer) of "deprecated infoboxes". I think one thing we should do straightaway is to create a new category called Category:Deprecated cricket templates under Category:Cricket templates and use it as a junk folder!
 * If anything, this could be an even worse mess to sort out than the main categories, but lets give it a go. Best regards.  BlackJack | talk page 05:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good start Juwe (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

George Griffith (cricketer)
Thanks for your assessment. I've attempted to introduce some structure, putting in section headings and moving one paragraph to a more suitable location. Perhaps you'd be willing to take another look at the article and see if it now merits a B? JH (talk page) 20:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It does. At first I thought these B-class criteria were too exacting but I've come around to the idea now and I even support inline citations!  What a u-turn that is.  I'm making my way through all the current B-class ratings to see if they meet the criteria: out of 58 of "my articles" that had previously been given a B, only five actually make the grade!  Good work on Griffith, John.  BlackJack | talk page 20:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) User:Robertson-Glasgow also deserves a lot of the credit, finding much of the information about Griffith's feats on the 1861-2 tour and about his big hitting. JH (talk page) 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

acs
thanks for that. I, like you, have got rid of my ACS stuff by and large and I forgot dear old Dennis Lambert and the Ad. The Kaye Book of CR's was a stimulus, as most certainly was Webber's book, I have that from several original horse's mouths. In a way(excepting cricket pre 1914) we're are no further on than 1973 because Mr Frindall is make arbitrary decisions and cricketarchive, particularly in respect of List A(of no personal interest0, has not really taken account of an ACS concensus(re- World Cup warm up, Fennar Trophy etc etc) I wonder if someone might fill out Rosenwater's biog. I met him once or twice and know those who knew him best. When dealing with personality it is difficult to give sources!Fieldgoalunit (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the Times obit might be the only good source about Irving Rosenwater unless there's anything in Wisden or one of the cricket mags.
 * I'm glad you mentioned the Fenner Trophy: we don't have an article for that yet. I'll make a note and see what I can do sometime.  User:jhall1 would be interested in that as he did most of the work on the University Match, plus OUCC and CUCC.
 * The lack of consensus in the subject at large does make things difficult for us on here as we must quote a verifiable source. The problem is that two opposing sources are both verifiable so both versions can co-exist here unless we as a project take a view that one shall prevail.  The problem then is consistency.  If, say, we decide that CricketArchive is our default, what do we do when we know that CA has got something wrong?  In the end, it comes down to the individual editor.  Regards.  BlackJack | talk page 08:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's an obituary of Irving Rosenwater by David Rayvern Allen on the Cricket Writers' Club site: Obituaries. You have to scroll a fair way down tt find it. JH (talk page) 09:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, in spite of its name I don't think that the Fenner Trophy had any connection to Cambridge University. It was a one-day competition (2 semi-finals and a final) played at Scarborough which happened to be sponsored by some firm called Fenner. JH (talk page) 20:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice
...to see you back in cricket circles, Jack. WillE (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessments
I'm impressed by the speed with which you've been doing these. You will hopefully have seen that, since you assessed Australian cricket team in England in 1902 a week or so ago, I've bow put it forward for an A-class review. The msjor change I've made is adding three photos: one of Darling, one of Trumper and one of Rhodes. (Unfortunately I don't think Wikipedis has any photos of Maclaren or Jessop that I could use.)

I've also commented on the other outstanding A-class reviews.

Seeing that Surrey CCC had failed its B-class review on grounds of inadequate structure and citations, I've been doing some work on it today. I think that I've considerably improved the structure, and I've added some in-line citations, though possibly not yet enough. In the process, I discovered that the match against Kent in June, 1846 that some sources (and the article) gave as Surrey's first f-c match is wrong. David Lemmon's Surrey history, confirmed by checking scorecards on CA, reveals that the first f-c match was actually against MCC the previous month. JH (talk page) 20:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to admit that I might have done them a bit too quickly to get them out of the way so I won't be surprised to receive a few challenges. The main thing lacking was citations but quite a lot didn't have supporting materials and some were blocks of text with no structure.  All those were easy to fail.  Half a dozen were stubs!
 * I'm impressed by the way that Australian cricket team in England in 1902 has developed from a gap in our Ashes coverage only a year ago to where it is now. I shall certainly read it again.
 * That's very good research to find the Surrey v MCC game as I've certainly got in my own records that SCCC's first match was against Kent. Amendment will be made.  Well done.  BlackJack | talk page 08:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hon. C G Lyttelton
I see that Hon. C G Lyttelton is included in WikiProject Cricket/redlinks. Am I right in thinking that this is the same person as Charles Lyttelton, 8th Viscount Cobham? If so, then there's already an article. JH (talk page) 13:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but...
I would really like someone to look into an issue I've been having with a certain editor who has consistently used counterproductive debating techniques in discussions with yours truly. Would you be able to do this/have a word to him (or me if you feel I am the problem). I have just posted about the issue here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Thanks Juwe (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, some people are counterproductive and difficult to deal with but at least in this case the AfD has been withdrawn. I see you've written to the WT:CRIC page, which is what I would have advised as there are several admins in the project.  I'm not an admin myself and this should really be addressed by them.  I can't see that you have done anything other than defend a legitimate article: my understanding is that the IPL will be repeated over the next three seasons unless it is media speculation I've read.  I've had plenty of adverse discussions on WP and they are frustrating but it is best to put it behind you and move on.  Best wishes.  BlackJack | talk page 05:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi BlackJack,
 * Thanks for your reply. One reason I posted here was that I assumed you were an admin given the amount of work you put into the project, and I wanted to make sure someone other than myself and LeaveSleaves knew about our discussion. He only abandoned his previous argument with me after I had wasted much time and effort mounting up evidence that proved his claims baseless. My actions now are an attempt to cut this latest bout of unconstructive editing off ASAP, and to (try to) ensure he knows not to engage in it again. With regard to the issue, it is absolutely clear that the IPL will take place next year (and the year after). The initial player auction actually saw players signed up for the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons. LeaveSleaves' requirement that there be a statement by the IPL chief saying "We announce that there will be a 2009 IPL Season", was therefore quite absurd. It is analagous to the Premier League having to make a statement that there will indeed be a Premier League season in 2008-09 for this to be accepted as a fact. Anyway, I won't bother you any more with this matter, and hope that it is swiftly resolved.
 * Regards, Juwe (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did apply for admin once during my early days on the site but I was turned down because I had spent all my time editing instead of completing AfD and chasing vandals! I had a couple of posts from others who pointed out how tedious admin can be and I decided to stick to editing.  More fun and more productive.  All the best.  BlackJack | talk page 06:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Glad to see my Gnome award still gracing your userspace. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a permanent fixture :-) BlackJack | talk page 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Philatelic assessments
Replied here. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Welsh players
Hi BlackJack, Just so that I know I'm not merely talking to myself (and because your comment about the Glamorgan page prompted my posts about Welsh players) would you mind taking a look here and giving an opinion one way or another? Thanks, Juwe (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Champion County" for 1872
It seems that we are currently inconsistent on this. The Champion County article says "Surrey (Nottinghamshire also supported)". However the Honours section of the Nottinghamshire CCC article gives the accolade to Notts and the Honours section of the Surrey CCC article does not claim it. Either the Champion County article or the Notts and Surrey articles ought to be changed, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know which. JH (talk page) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what's happened. The honours sections in each county article were created some time before a list was added to the Champion County article.  The honours sections reflect CricInfo, whose list is based on Rowland Bowen's researches.  However, when the 1864-1889 claimants were added to Champion County, WG Grace's list was used.  You are quite right that we should be consistent and I think the point made in the Champion County article about using WG as the default is fair comment, so I would change the honours sections.  WG was there and fully involved at the time; Bowen was not.  What do you think?  BlackJack | talk page 20:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to come down one way or the other. I wonder if WG's list was "all his own work" or was put together for him by one of his ghosts. Did he say what criteria he was using (eg fewest defeats or whatever)? Bowen seems to have been very knowledgeable but rather idiosyncratic in some of his ideas, from what I've read about him. The list back to 1864 which used to appear in Wisden was Bowen's. I've just looked on CricketArchive, to see whose list they favour, but as far as I can see they don't give any winners for before 1890. Perhaps ot's something where we should canvass opinion amongst project members? JH (talk page) 20:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Grace's list was actually introduced by User:AlbertMW. I had provided only a link to CricInfo.  I think we should get a project consensus if possible.  I'll write to WT:CRIC.  BlackJack | talk page 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As I put on the WPCS - Grace neither wrote the book nor made the list. The last long biog of him makes clearFieldgoalunit (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect reverted and stub expanded
After you've made your comments at the Bradman FAC (hint hint!) you might like to check out my handiwork at this old redirect page. --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on in! The water's lovely! --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Itchin Stoke Down
I'll check in the relevant chapter of Arlott's book, but I doubt that it goes into enough detail. CricketArchive only lists 7 matches played by Alresford, these being between 1779 and 1785. Looking up the ground (which CA incorrectly has as Stoke Down and listed under Hambledon), I found, which shows a solitary f-c match by "Hampshire" in 1806, eight years after the previous "major" match in 1798 shown here JH (talk page) 10:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now checked in the Arlott book. I think that this paragraph is all that he has to say about the various Alresford grounds: ''In the latter half of the eighteenth century there were four cricket grounds in Alresford. The chief was Stoke Down, reached by a sunken lane from the road junction at Abbotstone. It is now part of Itchen Down Farm. Another used for important games was Tichborne Down where the ground coincided then with the racecourse, and, now, with the fifth (former fourth) hole of the golf course, and the field to the south of it. A report of 1780 refers to 'the new laid ground' at Alresford; that was The Nythe, on drained land between the Pond and the Bighton Road. Fourth of the old pitches was at Fob Down, now part of Fobdown farm; it, too, has been ploughed up. There was also a private ground at the Grange in Northington: but the preent Old Alresford ground, in Bighton Road, is substantially later than any of the others.'' JH (talk page) 13:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * |Alresford#map=51.09061,-1.16112|13|4&loc=GB:51.09061:-1.16112:14|New%20Alresford|New%20Alresford,%20Alresford,%20Hampshire,%20England,%20SO24%209 shows many of the places mentioned by Arlott: Itchen Stoke, Abbotstone, Fobdown. Tichborne and Bighton. I believe that Arlott used to live in the Alresford area, which would help to explain his interest. JH (talk page) 15:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

C-class
See [] for details Bluap (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea
I've rewritten Papua New Guinea national cricket team and as it no longer a stub, I'd appreciate you running your eye over it and giving it a new rating, when you get the chance. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Denzil Onslow
If this web page is to be believed, it may be that his son - also apparently named Denzil - was the General: JH (talk page) 21:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Scrub that. Other pages don't agree with that one, and have the born 1770 Denzil Onslow as the General. JH (talk page) 21:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lord Charles Strathavon
It looks as though he may be the younger brother of this fellow: George Gordon, 9th Marquess of Huntly. I found him by doing a search on "Strathavon". Both his father and his son were named "Charles", but their dates are wrong. JH (talk page) 08:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If he's the 5th Earl of Aboyne then he must be the person whom I've linked to above in spite of the apparent difference in first names. JH (talk page) 09:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent cricketer articles
I think you are doing great work documenting the early cricketers in your recent articles. Just one point -- do the titles really need the disambiguation parentheses when there is no other article of the same name? For example there was no W. Chapman so I moved W Chapman (Nottinghamshire cricketer) to that name (including the full stop, which appears to be the convention, see H. G. Wells). I thought I had better discuss this with you before I moved any more. I have also been fixing the reference punctuation - full stop immediately before the opening tag with no space, and replacing, with Reflist which I think is the preferred template now. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree where only the surname is known - clearly in that case some disambiguation is required. Where initials, but not names, are known, my gut reaction would be to keep it simple and use the less cumbersome title (with full stops!) if its available. – ukexpat (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Singapore national cricket team
Another one for you to cast your eye over and give a new rating! Andrew nixon (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And Tanzania national cricket team when you get chance. I'm slowly working my way through all the national team articles and trying to bring most up to B class - some will not be more than stubs though, as there isn't that much information readily available - and will eventually get to the terrible Afghanistan article! Andrew nixon (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do, Andrew. I've created a list of things to do (see above) and this is in it.  I'm tied up with all things professional at present but hope to find more time in another week or so.  Good luck with Afghanistan.  BlackJack | talk page 05:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ashes series
Thank-you for drawing my attention to this discussion regarding my separation of Ashes series and tour articles. I had missed it. You were, of course, quite right in pointing out that Wikipedia is a shared resource, and I should have sought prior consensus opinion from WT:CRIC - I stand corrected.

It is my personal opinion that Ashes series are more notable than other test series, and that a game between the Duke of Arundel's XI and the squad players who would otherwise not feature in the series is unworthy of being mentioned in an article about the Ashes - the most important test match series played - which is why I felt that they should have a separate article. Although I now see my opinion differs from the four other editors, on whose toes I trod, who had contributed to the above discussion.

However, as the majority of the series articles (such as: Australian cricket team in England in 1884, or Australian cricket team in England in 1893), are little more than very short stubs, some not even related to single series but rather periods (such as History of Australian cricket from 1876-77 to 1890), I thought that my writing of more detailed articles was better than nobody doing anything at all.

Of the articles related to Australia v England test matches that are of any notable length, (such as: English cricket team in Australia and New Zealand in 1876-77, English cricket team in Australia in 1878-79, Australian cricket team in England in 1882, English cricket team in Australia in 1986–87, the 1948 Ashes series, 1989 Ashes series, 1990-91 Ashes series, English cricket team in Australia in 2002–03) much of the text was primarily written, or heavily contributed to by me. Although it is hard to tell for some of them without wading through history and revert links, as you have reverted them to the tour articles without reference to my having originally written the text, as was discussed between you and Moondyne in the above discussion, when he wrote: "Contributions to Wikipedia remain the personal intellectual property of the contributor/s and must always be able to be attributed back to the author...". You moving the text I have written to your 'tour' pages without reference to my having written the text is clearly in contravention of this. I had also written text for other articles such as English cricket team in Australia in 1880-81, which you deleted when you reverted to Australian cricket team in England in 1880, although you were happy to keep my match details but changed the text and got rid of the perfectly good infobox. But that is the nature of Wikipedia...

The only Eng v Aus articles of any length not written by me being Australian cricket team in England in 1902, Centenary Test, English cricket team in Australia in 2002–03, and 2005 Ashes series and 2006-07 Ashes series the last two of which you have strangely chosen not to revert?

Whilst I didn't follow this whole discussion for its duration, and thereby missed the recent part of the debate I had previously checked the discussion when I noticed the non-Ashes series template I designed had been edited. I also noticed on that on 17 May in the discussion between yourself and Juwe, you had originally seemingly supported the creation of separate Ashes articles, when you wrote:

"I've gone through this and directed all redlinks to the tour articles but I've left alone the six or seven links to existing series articles (e.g., 1948 series). As and when further series articles are created, the template can easily be adapted. There are still half a dozen redlinks because some of the tour articles were deleted a year or so ago due to being "insufficient stubs": we should have done some work on them but the anti-cricket brigade beat us to it... --BlackJack | talk page 10:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)"

Yet when 'further series articles' were created by me, you reverted them to the tour articles created by you, rather than adapt.

It should probably also be noted that in common language, cricket fans usually refer to the '1981 Ashes series' or '1981 Ashes', not the 'Australian cricket team in England in 1981'.

I am particularly passionate about cricket and The Ashes and was prepared to write articles about all of the series that no one else has bothered about, but seeing as you have adopted this as your project, and clearly don't think much of my editing, referring to me as 'a extremely clumsy editor who makes loads of mistakes', I am sure you will be pleased to hear I will spend my time on other projects for which I am equally passionate instead. I am certainly not interested in juvenile 'edit wars' and would prefer to make a positive contribution to improve Wikipedia elsewhere.

Perhaps if you spent as much time writing good articles about the Ashes as you do moving things around we would have a great coverage of the topic. I will strive in future to reach your level of editing and ensure I am not so clumsy in future. I am sure now that I am leaving the topic alone most of the pages will stay as useless stubs for a long time, but I do look forward to reading your finished tour articles when you get round to them. Robert Fleming (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You have missed the point of GFDL. By cutting and pasting contents out of existing articles into new ones you have destroyed the quality of the originals and have created new articles that are, according to their history pages, “all your own work”.  Where do these articles credit the people who actually did the work in the original articles?  If I have had to breach GFDL myself in order to rectify your actions, it has been done out of necessity and not because I am taking someone else’s credit.
 * Although you are right that some useful content, such as the infobox you mentioned, has not been carried over to the tour article, there are two points to be made. One is that I do not have time to enhance the tour article: I am merely putting matters right by restoring content that has been wrongly removed.  Second is that your infobox has not been lost: it is still on the log pages of the series article and you can add it to the tour article if you want to.  Note that if you do the edit, you will be credited with creating the infobox and you will have done it in the right place whereby the work of the earlier editors is not adversely impacted.
 * Re the 1948 and 2005 Ashes series articles, I have not done anything with those because there is no problem about how they were created. They were created in conjunction with the tour articles and do not impact on anyone else’s work.
 * I have intervened in the articles that contravene GFDL and project consensus because I am an active member of WP:CRIC and a key part of our purpose is to safeguard all cricket articles, not just those in our own spheres of interest. I would just as readily intervene if there was a discrepancy in an article about, say, women’s cricket.  I do not have time to write articles about the Ashes, a topic that does not have the same importance to me as to yourself.  My interests lie elsewhere and I can assure you that I do write articles that provide coverage of my particular topic.  BlackJack | talk page 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just read the discussion at WT:CRIC and followed it here and, especially considering that my name has been mentioned and my edits are relevant to this thread, I think I should say a few things.
 * Firstly, there seem to be a few matters that have personally grated on both of you which is somewhat inhibiting constructive dialogue, and from what I can see there is no need for that as you both seem like reasonable editors. The first such matter is that of the GFDL attribution problem when text is cut and pasted into a new article. This certainly seems an important consideration when moving text, but it appears that all 3 of us (and probably many others) were unaware of this issue until a few hours ago. BlackJack is right to point out that in future this should be properly dealt with, but I don't see that Robert should be overly criticised for his incorrect editing of the past, especially with the implication, intended or otherwise, that he is trying to take someone else's credit. I would have been a bit peeved if someone had implied that about my motives for any such editing.
 * Secondly, it is evident that BlackJack has had a few issues with the quality of Robert's previous editing, and this might have tried his patience when it came to this discussion. However, merely berating someone as "an extremely clumsy editor" who "makes loads of mistakes", in a discussion about whether certain text should have been moved, when his recent actions were clearly good faith attempts to improve articles within the scope of WP:CRIN isn't going to do anything other than make him feel attacked, something that has evidently occurred.
 * There is also the fact that Robert should have raised his proposed editing at WT:CRIC first. Robert's recognition of that is obviously a sign that he is willing to listen to criticism as long as, in his view (as far as I can tell anyway), his efforts are given the good faith assumption they deserve. It is also true that, there certainly is the suggestion in BlackJack and my discussion, that separate Ashes Series pages will be created as well as the tour pages. I am actually not averse to this idea, but I will post something on that at the project page and not here. This might well lead someone to believe that it isn't outrageously bold to undertake the edits that Robert did.
 * Regarding the "non-Ashes series template", I realise that even I might be considered to have failed to give adequate attribution, although I think that might be stretching it. I originally edited the template which Robert had created at Template:Ashes series, but this was reverted to the original template at that location. As such, I recreated the new template at Template:Ashes Test series, as well as creating Template:Non-Ashes Australia v England Test series, both of which incorporate work done by Robert. This explanation serves 2 purposes:
 * To make it clear to all that these templates exist and can be used (ie we don't need new templates for this purpose); and
 * To demonstrate that of this was done, not for credit, but to improve wikipedia, and I think it reasonable to assume that Robert's motivation for his recent editing was the same.
 * Finally, it might seem that I am simply going in to bat for Robert, but I think that Robert's "parting shot", while not exactly vitriolic, might show a lack of appreciation for the frustration BlackJack has evidently felt in fixing past edits that go against consensus and fail to properly involve the project.
 * In essence, what I am saying is that a momentary consideration of the other's perspective should make it clear that both of you were merely trying to help the project and that each of you had some reason to feel a little irked. As such, there is no need to argue defensively or talk down to the other party.
 * That is my view anyway. I hope it helps the situation rather than inflaming it, but I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think both of you were reasonable enough to not let that happen ;-) Juwe (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wise words, Juwe. I apologise for anything I may have said in frustration that has given the wrong impression.  As you say, I simply want to do what is right for the project and the readers.  All the best.  BlackJack | talk page 18:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your vandalism warning to me
As you well know, your vandalism warning to me was not justified, and I will be removing it shortly. The tag I placed on your category was accurate at the time, since it was empty when I tagged it, which you freely admited by placing on the page and explaining (wrongfully) why you thought the category should be kept on the category's talk page. The only reason it was declined was because someone populated it after I placed the tag. There was no vandalism. Please learn to distingush vandalism from non-vandalism before giving out warnings again. 140.211.8.8 (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied to this timewaster on his IP address page. BlackJack | talk page 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My requests to delete pages should not be dismissed because I don't have an account. It most certainly was not "unconstructive" or "completely without justification" as you would like to believe, in fact it was based on Wikipedia policy.  Please read WP:CSD more carefully, the category, as it was when I tagged it, should have been deleted under Wikipedia policy.  The only reason it wasn't deleted is because someone took it upon themselves to populate it (after I tagged it!). If you had access to my deleted contribs you could see I have gotten probably over 100 similar categories deleted for the same reason. I can't believe you are trying to brush off what I did (an action completely supported by Wikipedia's own policies) as vandalism, or unconstructive, or what have you.  Editors like you really turn off good-faith IP contributors from Wikipedia. 140.211.8.8 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Become a member. BlackJack | talk page 03:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the importance of John Arlott
Some time ago I upgraded the importance rating of John Arlott from Mid to High because I thought that he merited it. I see that you've recently reverted it to Mid. Rating non-players is difficult. However if Cardus, Swanton and Haygarth merit their High ratings, which I think they do, then I believe that Arlott should have the same rating. His commentaries have probably caused more people to acquire an interest in cricket than those of any other broadcaster, and when you add his journalism and his books then he is a very significant figure. JH (talk page) 20:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the rating should be high. There may a few importance ratings that have changed inadvertently because I copied in the new six-point quality criteria en bloc across a wide range of talk pages.  I've already noticed a few where I've not changed the importance rating back from the default I had in my copy.  I have actually got a note to look at importance ratings in my list of things to do.  I'll certainly change this one with my apologies.  BlackJack | talk page 04:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:MCC cricketers
Hello. I note your removal of this category from several players' articles (Doug Padgett, for one). I know I agreed with your reasoning about this subject couple of years ago, but I have changed my mind since then. I really don't see how we can have a category which contains only some of the people who qualify for it, and where inclusion is based on a necessarily subjective opinion of who was and who was not a "significant" MCC player. I really do think we need to include every MCC player or not have the category at all. I'll put this comment on WT:CRIC as well, since I may well have missed a discussion about it whilst I was away, and I think it's an issue that needs resolving one way or the other. I know you feel strongly about it, and I appreciate the reasons you gave last time, but it does bother me. Loganberry (Talk) 22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only articles amended were Doug Padgett and Tony Nicholson. See WT:CRIC for my full answer.  Regards.  BlackJack | talk page 06:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll answer on WT:CRIC. Loganberry (Talk) 11:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Page (MCC cricketer)
I have nominated Page (MCC cricketer), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Page (MCC cricketer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Done
I've re-written David Allison, retaining the infobox and all valid information. Hope this is okay. I will post a notice saying the same thing on WT:CRIC. Bobo. 19:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Flags
Hi i've notice you've been removing flags as per WP:Flags. Are you doing this manually or have you developed some kind of script to do it for you? Gnevin (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK was hoping you had developed some sort of script Gnevin (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Centuries
Never ending story :-) Thanks. Tintin 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First Class Scores
That is a very fine article. Two small points. Cricketarchive does list games without scorecards - as with Phil Bailey, I don't think a match can be fully accepted without the card. After all, it might have been nine a side! Another point is a wider issue. It is that of historicism. FSAC fiddled Grace's records, of that there is no doubt. However he was about at the time and thus his records were the contempory figures. The desire to tidy up ignores the contemporary feeling. Of course it leads to hogwash. The Hobbs-India games were missed out as the scores were slow getting back. The Cricketer felt they were f-c but by the time they were collated, JBH's record was pretty much in stone.(see Cricketer 32/3 Spring Annual) That in terms of 'looking back' is perhaps the only googly. The other problem is Home Gordon who made multiple errors but his figures were widly quoted. Webber lack full sources (no microfische, no record of library holdings in those days) This makes for the confusion. There is a list, I have a bit of it, that has about 88 matches that perhaps ought to be first class. Everything from missed out matches to judgements against official decisions. The post 1864 figures are almost in stone but when we look at a state of confusion - LIST A. Most counties do not use it in their records because Mr Bailey ignored contemporay opinion regarding tourist games and the Fennar Trophy. Who cares! not I on List A but what we really need to quantify the f-c list (and important matches. I don't think we can use f-c before 1870 because it didn't exist at the time. I can't remember who started using it - it was probably Lillywhite) We need a proper historian to look at it. I think we have all seen it as a question of stats. To illustrate the point, our(Shropshire) records are ignored in respect of pre 1864 matches. No one uses the scores as important, no serious historian has put them on lists yet when the Salop(Shrewsbury Club) played Manchester in the 1840's it was a big deal here and there. I think we are a backwater and until Tony Percivals book we were forgotten. What else has similarly suffered. Anyway that's a point I've made for many a year both in and out of ACS. We need to look at this like Historians and apply historical principles. Great article nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.182.62 (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your kind remarks and for some useful feedback. I'll keep this and add some of your points next time I review the article.  All the best.  BlackJack | talk page 18:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

opps got sent somewhere else by accident
I got sent to a comment of your and thought it said you were requesting my indefinate bann. nevermind, the article spazed or something. Cheers.Yami (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Women's cricket
In the lead for your partial rewrite you have this: "women's cricket, which is organised and played separately..." The ICC actually took over the administration of women's cricket in 2006 and it is now a requirement that the national boards administer women's cricket themselves if it exists in their territory. It's actually one of the things the ICC can be justifiably proud of - in the 12 months from August 2006, the number of countries fielding women's national sides more than doubled. So it is now completely integrated into the men's game - though the Test and ODI playing nations are different. Though using the phrase "men's game" is perhaps a little inaccurate, as there are no rules that prevent women from taking part in "men's" matches. Indeed a girl (Cindy Paquin) played for the French Under-17 team in 2002! Andrew nixon (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Philatelic categories
I don't know if you recall why we have the two categories Category:Technical aspects of philately and Category:Philatelic terminology, one of which you started, as there now seems little defining difference between them and now a proposal has been made to merge. It is being discussed here. Hope you remember. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Flemish or Dutch
Dear BlackJack, Flemish is not and has never been a language. To name the Dutch as spoken in contemporary Belgium Flemish stems from 19th century French. krikke and variants were medieval Dutch, from Flanders, but the language over there has always been Dutch (of course under its local dialect form). krikke however, is not only Flemish (dialect), but also standard Dutch, so your source is inaccurate when saying it is Flemish. You musn't think the two are different languages. It's just colloquial speech.--Hooiwind (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So I changed the so-called Flemish ethymology to Dutch (but the reference to the County of Flanders has been preserved). The latter is generally accepted as the correct name for the language.--Hooiwind (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Date linking
Hi,

I've seen that you have spotted the change to the MOS regarding date linking. I've just been looking at your recently created cricketer articles and noticed you were still including "day month" links January 1. This are now to be unlinked too...it doesn't just apply to the years. So dates read 8 August 2005 (UK+International) or September 5, 2004 (US) depending on the main focus of the article.

–MDCollins (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't know that. I've never seen the point of linking years unless you are referring to something actually in the year article.  I prefer the 8 September 2008 format so if I just write that from now on, it will not be converted in any way?  All the best.  BlackJack | talk page 16:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine, yeah - the only problem that WP:CRIC editors might have is with a conflict over a US cricketer or something US related where the September 8, 2008 format is preferred (and should be adhered to). AFAIK, all of the major cricketing nations (inc. Australia and Sub-continent) use 8 September 2008 (although some people are still arguing for date linking), but for now the MOS stands.–MDCollins (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

History of cricket to 1725
I see that you've been doing quite a bit of work on this. I just wanted to raise a couple of points concerning the famous court case at Guildford:
 * I've generally seen 1798 given as the date of the case rather than 1597. I was wondering if the discrepancy could be due to the year at that period running from the start of April to the end of the following March, as I understand it. Thus a comtemporary document dated "January, 1597" would actually be from January, 1598 in our reckoning, where we take the year as running from January to December.
 * "John Derrick's surname was derived from the Flemish [9] name "Hendrik" [10]." That may be so, but the implication that the reader is invited to draw from this, that he may have learnt of the game through his Flemish family connections, seems to me a very dubious one. We don't know how many generations back his family moved to England, but it was probably quite some time for "Hendrik" to have mutated into "Derrick". Also a first or second generation immigrant would probably be unlikely to get to be appointed coroner, which implies a considerable standing in the community. There's also (I assume) no evidence that Derrick introduced his school-fellows to cricket rather than his learning the game from them. So I would omit that sentence, and put the rest of that paragraph, about the game's possible Flemish origin, somewhere else in the article.

JH (talk page) 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, especially for the calendar site link. I hadn't seen that before. "I'm going to try and promote this article through GA and FA, if I can, so any help you can give me will be very much appreciated." Good luck. At the weekend I'll try to find time to read through the whole article carefully. I have a particular interest in the Guildford connection, as I live only about 8 miles from the town. It's interesting how many early references are to the Guildford area, places like Wanborough, Clandon and Shere (or was it Albury?) cropping up IIRC. It makes me wonder whether the received wisdom that cricket began around The Weald could be wrong and it actually originated in West Surrey. Of course that's just speculation. JH (talk page) 19:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up". One thought about the length of the chain having been the length of the pitch "since time immemorial". I suggest being more precise and instead saying something along the lines of "at least since the first known code of laws in 1744". It might also be worth mentioning that the wide availability of Gunter's chain made the chain a very convenient length to use. Had any other length been chosen, then measuring it accurately on various out of the way grounds might have presented a problem. In fact the Gunter's chain article specifically mentions its application to cricket, with a citation. JH (talk page) 09:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Official cricket
Not sure if you've come across this recently revised document, but it may help you if you revamp the first-class cricket article. It's made some revisions - most notably the replacing of a UK and Ireland with a more accurate England and Wales section, and the removal of Ireland v Scotland from that section, as that match now doesn't have first-class status by rights, though it obviously does when part of the Intercontinental Cup.

There is one more thing in there that I'd like your opinion on. It has a section on "Women's Competitive cricket" which is defined in similar terms to first-class/List A cricket, though it doesn't go completely into specifics. CricketArchive has recently begun to have wf and wa match classifications in addition to their current f/a classifications, (eg. here and here) so my question is, do you think we can claim notability for women in those matches? Could we get away with saying that someone like Catherine Smaill was notable? She has played for Scotland, but not in women's ODIs, but has played in three matches classed as CricketArchive's women's equivalent of List A. Thoughts? Andrew nixon (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Yorkshire - Shame... Despite my residence in Huddersfield, I am a Lancastrian! Andrew nixon (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maurits van Nierop
I've done a bit of work on this article since his sad death the other day, and whilst someone has rated it as C class, I think it's certainly a B. Could you cast your eye over it? Cheers. Andrew nixon (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That certainly appears to be what happened. The article is on the main page in the DYK section as I type this. You should think about nominating some of your longer articles for the DYK section, they're a great way to get them some attention - though you of course have to watch out for the usual vandals.


 * Van Nierop is my 30th article in the DYK section, and I must admit it is quite satisfying to see some recognition for ones work! My favourite DYK fact I had on the main page was for Alexander Wilkinson: "... that Alexander Wilkinson managed to play 74 more first-class cricket matches despite an injured hand that almost had to be amputated after World War I?", though as you'll see from the article, that's far from being the most interesting thing about the man, who seemed to be some sort of superhero. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

English cricket team in South Africa in 1905-06
I created the above article at English cricket team in South Africa 1905-06 and then realised you had done one at English cricket team in South Africa in 1905-06. Ihope you don't mind, but for now I have put the newer one in place and plan to copy over parts from your one, as the newer one is a tad longer and has more detail. I am perfectly prepared to change this arrangement following consultation with you :) SGGH speak! 20:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment
Maria Sharapova has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. All the edit war/ sockpuppet vandalism has been promptly restored with the vandal now blocked. The article looks great to me. I'll have a decision in a few days. Ogioh (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sharapova review
Hi,

I think it necessary to point out that, yes, while there was an edit war in about June on the article, it is long defunct now. Consensus agrees that this version of the article is far preferable to the version Tennis expert trumpets, which was last used regularly in June; TE is simply a troll at this point, who occasionally edits the article back to his prefered version (I believe it no coincidence that he re-edited the article this time as soon as you announced you were assessing the article). It certainly does not change significantly day-to-day like the "edit war" clause states, and hasn't done for many months.

Thanks,

Danny. Musiclover565 (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see someone already applied for a reassessment, and you decided to hold for a month (I had not seen this before I posted). I still think it is not necessary to fail it, however, as the real edit war ceased a long time ago. Musiclover565 (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Prods
As an informed cricket editor, please see Talk:Cricket. TerriersFan (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick thanks
Just wanted to give a quick THANKS for starting the GA review for the Croatia team. About time :). If there's anything you need/want to know, then you can leave a message on the talk page or to me personally on my page. Thanks! Domiy (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

History of cricket to 1725
"When the South Sea Company was found to be insolvent, its crash in 1720 caused massive repercussions throughout the economy and many formerly prosperous investors were ruined, including some of cricket's patrons. The reason for fewer reports was the withholding of patronage and investment, hence fewer matches." I can't help wondering if history is about to repeat itself. I wonder how secure Allen Stanford's millions, and those of the backers of the ICL and the IPL, are.

Queen's Park, Chesterfield
See you have assessed article for WP Cricket, and feel it does not not meet B class, but you marked it as a start, what is your criteria for C class then please ?. When I found it it was a B with no refs and a poor layout. Which was fixed. It definitely exceeds the start class on the standard grading chart IMO, so were do you feel it does not meet C criteria ? - Thanks for adding your comments to article ( I'll move it to C any way as you say its lacking on Cricket history, which is a reasonably important part of articles subject) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying your reasoning/ criteria used. I'm surprised how few projects appear to be reassessing articles. Getting some feedback / second opinion on articles is helpful to getting a better feel for the ratings, as the quality of similar rated articles that I've come across differs substantially. Cricket would appear to have a more clearly defined criteria than a lot of other projects (which is interesting as one editor told me I should up date the class for all projects on a page to the same (but offered no explanation as to were this policy is) so your projects definitions confirm that view is misguided). Cheers - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

William Bedle - Failed GA nomination
Hi BlackJack. Thanks for nominating William Bedle for GA. Unfortunately there is not a lot of information in the article, and we don't have any indication of why he was considered a good player, nor even if he was a batsman or bowler, which games he played in, or if he was right or left handed. The article doesn't meet the requirement for being broad in coverage. If you feel that no more information on Bedle can be found, then this may be an article that will remain at Start class. However, if you do some research and build up the article so that we are given detailed information about the man, then please resubmit later. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles‎. BlackJack | talk page 10:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD
As you can tell, I think CfD is a farce and better decisions on category names would come from tossing a coin. I participate there under sufferance. Unfortunately, the nature of self-organised projects like Wikipedia means little self-perpetuating bureaucracies are created that&mdash;even though they have forgotten their role is to improve the encyclopedia, not blindly follow their self-made thicket of rules&mdash;are so well entrenched they are impossible to reform. Note that those making the decision (and it will be made over the top of the unanimous consensus of those people who actually use the categories) won't be forced to deal with the mess they have made and complaints about the problems with the imposed "consensus" will be termed "owning" or "whining" or being a bad loser.

As I said in my nomination, I hold no prospects for the nomination's success. Like all good bureaucracies, the usual participants at CfD are reluctant to admit that any errors could be made and a reason (any reason!) will be found to keep the existing name. Indeed to justify their initial error, the logic will be applied across the board. Stay tuned for category names such as:
 * Category:Victoria (Australia) cricket team cricketers
 * Category:Sussex County (England) Cricket Club cricketers (More than one Sussex County in the US and who's to know if there isn't a cricket club there)
 * Category:Canterbury (New Zealand) cricket team cricketers
 * Category:Bombay cricket team cricketers (After all not all cricketers from Mumbai play for Bombay and theoretically someone, somewhere could be confused in some manner)
 * Category:Guyana cricket team cricketers (Just in case a Guyanese person is playing for the US and there may be perhaps the theoretical possibility of confusion between Guyana cricketers and Guyanese cricketers - despite the different names and eligibility criteria!)

CfD is obsessed with removing any chance of ambiguity, even at the expense of basic common sense. While removing ambiguity where possible is a good thing, it is not the only consideration that needs to be taken into account. Clarity and simplicity&mdash;other important qualities when creating names for things&mdash;are thrown out the window at CfD in the never-ending pursuit of removing even the remote likelihood of confusion. In the meantime, another small corner of the encylopedia will more complex and less user-friendly and another small piece of enjoyable activity will become less so. And CfD will continue on oblivious. My apologies for the rant, I feel better now :-) -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything malicious in their actions (other than their hostile and vicious response to the mildest criticism). I think they genuinely think they they are making a positive difference to the project through their actions at CfD, amazingly enough. Their problem is that they are slaves to the gods of "process" and "policy" and know (and care) so little about the wider encyclopedia that they are unable to apply common sense to the decisions that following policy and process can lead to. Combined with a general contempt for those editors coming to CfD without a history of participation there, poor decisions are bound to follow. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may ask here, too...
I am writing up lists of English women's first-class cricketers, Cricket Archive codes wf1 to wf216. What about those cricketers from matches waus1 to waus263, Australian women's limited overs competitions attached to various sponsors? Are these players notable for inclusion?

Any input would be useful - as I don't really know the answer either way. Thank you. Bobo. 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On User talk:Bobo192, BlackJack said: Hello Bobo. I'm not really sure but I would be inclined to rate those players (i.e., in waus1 to waus263) as notable. The competition seems to me to be the equivalent of ListA. Good luck

Thank you very much for clarification. I had assumed this may be the case, just wanted to run it by someone else before making any overly swift decisions. I will continue to make my list of waus cricketers. Bobo. 17:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Francis Lacey
I feel that Lacey's importance on the administrative side was such that he should merit a "mid" rather than the "low" that you have given him. Inevitably there's a substantial element of subjectivity with importance ratings; so much so that I think that it might have been better if the project hadn't implemented them in the first place. WPBiography seems to manage without them, but we're stuck with them now. Certainly if Jack Newman merits a mid (and I agree that he does), then I think that Lacey is at least as important a figure. JH (talk page) 18:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree with all that you've said. Ranking the importance of players is hard enough, but then when you try to compare the importance of a player with that of a club, say, it becomes even more difficult. I've ranked a few players as Bottom importance if they've only played a handful of f-c games, but I've discovered that a problem with that is that the bot which produces the nicew table of numbers of articles broken down by class and importance doesn't pick up Bottom importance. JH (talk page) 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Zambia national cricket team
I've rewritten this and would appreciate a quick assessment. Afghanistan is next, hopefully a decent article there in time for it to get messed up again when they play in WCL Division Three in Argentina in January. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bart King
I can see your rationale for doing it, but I don't think that you ought to edit what other people have written on a Talk page, even in order to update a link. I see Talk pages as providing a historical record of the discussion as it occurred at the time, and if anyone altered anything I had written myself on a Talk page without consulting me first I would be a little annoyed. In any case, since the original link now redirects to the new article, no harm is done by letting the original link stand. (Of course, if you did ask the original writers and they said "fine, go ahead" then I take back what I've said.) JH (talk page) 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but double redirects take priority and I did only update the linkage. Nothing was changed in terms of the message.  There ought to be a comprehensive automated method of merging articles (e.g., as for moving articles) as this procedure turned out to be a pain in the neck.  BlackJack | talk page 05:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Graeme Pollock
As you know, we're rushing on this to get it into the 0.7 release.

I'm not very good on quality assessment below FA - would you say that this article now meets A, B or GA status?

Is it slightly short of reaching a decent standard, and if so, what could be fixed? --Dweller (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

signing
Hi. Thanks for giving me the tip. I have many times recently had to type that I cannot sign properly. I did not think there was another way of doing it. Thanks for the tip. 02blythed (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC) signed as you suggested

English cricket team in West Indies in 1959-60
That a lot more substantial an article than the other tour articles that you're just rated as stubs, and I reckon that it merits at least a "start" rating. Of course, as its author I might be a little biased. :) JH (talk page) 18:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cricket key bios
BlackJack is there any reason you blanked out most of the comments and merged all the table together? I would like the comments restored at least. You can add your own opinion of course, I don't hold nay monopoly on commentary.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 05:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Greville
Hi Jack. There's already an article on Charles Greville under his full name Charles Cavendish Fulke Greville. And the new one seems to spell his name with only one L. Johnlp (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Whoops, and Henry Lowther (politician) too. It's these aristocrats: they get in everywhere! Johnlp (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Greville piece is horrid, isn't it (though not quite as fawning as some Wisden obits of the same period). Not everyone has your enviably succinct style. Johnlp (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"The long-whiskered Doctor"
Is that WG ? I always assumed that he was referring to the Coroner.


 * WG : "The champion of the centuries, he cometh up against thee, With his brethren, every one a famous foe!"
 * EM : "The long-whiskered Doctor, that laugheth the rules to scorn, While the bowler, pitched against him, bans the day he was born;" (the latter half perhaps a reference to his cross-batted hitting ?)
 * GF : "And G.F. with his science makes the fairest length forlorn; They are come from the West to work thee woe!"

Isn't that so ?

Btw, in case you don't have them, Grace's Memorial Biography is available at http://www.archive.org/details/memorialbiograph00maryuoft and Cricket at http://www.archive.org/details/cricket00gracgoog. A search for "cricket" will give a few more old books. Tintin 08:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In gamesmanship, there is also Sammy Jones run out at Oval 1882. Tintin 08:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. Mrs, I am not even that lucky :-) Tintin 14:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Happened to spot this from you on Tintin's talk page: "There are presently several WG books available on eBay: I've just bought Darwin's for a quid plus postage but my better half has seized it and insists that it solves the problem of one of my birthday presents next month!!" Perhaps you could persuade her to give you Simon Rae's biography of Grace as well. Not only is it an excellent book but - unusually for a writer on cricket - he is as meticulous as a good Wiki writer in citing his sources. There must be an average of 20-30 citations per chapter. JH (talk page) 15:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * She's put a watch on one of the Rae books already, as it happens. And also the Rayvern Allen one.  Those two are not for sale by auction, though, they're buy it now or best offer.  Simon Rae has probably picked up on current thinking generally about providing sources.  We've come a long way from H T Waghorn who didn't provide any at all!  ---BlackJack | talk page 17:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Sewells
Excellent! It would probably have been ages before I got around to doing an article for Tom Sewell junior, and I'm glad that I can now cross him off my "to do" list. JH (talk page) 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just added a whole load more players from that era into the redlinks to-do list and I think the project will be expanding for a long time yet! ---Jack | talk page 08:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the list, I noticed "Timothy Duke (Kent) 1823 to 1828". I was wondering if he might have been the founder of the Dukes cricket ball manufacturer. I seem to recall that they are based in Kent. JH (talk page) 10:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unfortunately Dukes don't seem to have a web site of their own. JH (talk page) 10:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you very much for your welcome message. I have been using the site for reference for some time and have occasionally made small anonymous edits to correct spelling mistakes and the like, so I'm not a complete rookie. I thought that doing reviews would be interesting so I'll take a stab at it and see how it goes. I think it would be wise to try the GA type first before I venture into FA which seems much more demanding!

I will consider joining the cricket project although I'm much more of a football man, but I do like watching cricket. Thanks for the invite anyway.

As for your short article, I now fully understand the reason for your proposal on the good article criteria page and you are definitely right about the "broad in coverage" aspect. "Broad" is the wrong word entirely and the measure should be about "ample coverage".

I've read the Bedle article and the review entries on its talk page. I'd like to give it a formal and detailed review if you will nominate it again. I shall probably stay logged on through today because I'm reading the Anderssen article so, if you let me know when it's there, I'll claim it for the review. Some first thoughts on it are that I think the first reviewer SilkTork made some reasonable points and I gather you have already addressed these. The issue with that review was his insistence that not enough detail is known and that's the real difficulty I will have to overcome. As for the second review, you are quite right that he was out of order, though I think you should have replied after your understandable anger had subsided. I happen to know that one of the sources you quote, the Rowland Bowen book, is entirely reputable (I have a cricketing friend who owns it!). There is no case whatsoever for assuming that any of the sources quoted are suspect and he didn't even utilise the GA criteria, so he was just wasting everybody's time.

Do please nominate it again and I'll see if I can grab it before anyone else does! ---KenKt (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I'm just letting you know that I have commenced the review and have no problems with the five immediate points around reliable sources, objective approach, cleanup warnings, disputes and current topic. So I will do a detailed review and hope to have some feedback for you in a few days. By the way, someone else has just written to you above so I think their post will not now be on your watchlist (not quite sure how that works yet). --KenKt (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WG Grace
Been reading this article which has improved enormously in recent weeks. Do you think coverage of his bowls activity should be expanded, especially as he took part in international competition?

By the way, your previous post came from someone with a personality problem. I suggest you report it to the admins as there is quite a long history which probably includes other immature contributions. --GeorgeWilliams (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)