User talk:PabloWarhola

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2017–18 Women's Big Bash League season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Penrith ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2017%E2%80%9318_Women%27s_Big_Bash_League_season check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2017%E2%80%9318_Women%27s_Big_Bash_League_season?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Melbourne Stars (WBBL), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katie Mack ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Melbourne_Stars_%28WBBL%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Melbourne_Stars_%28WBBL%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020–21 Melbourne Renegades WBBL season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molineux.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

File:WBBL04CapLogoSixers.svg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WBBL04CapLogoSixers.svg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Jess Jonassen
Hi Pablo, I just wanted to clarify a few things regarding my Jess Jonassen edits:

1. I used CricketArchive for the statistics and changed the infobox source to CricketArchive because it includes WBBL stats. The Cricinfo source doesn't include them. Obviously CricketArchive isn't 100% ideal because it's subscriber-only but I felt it was a better indication of the source of all of the stats, plus it includes domestic teams.

2. There's a discrepancy in her number of ODI runs conceded between CricketArchive (2,179) and Cricinfo (2,180), resulting in an an ODI bowling average of 19.99 on CricketArchive or 20.00 or Cricinfo. Who knows which is correct.

3. There's also a discrepancy in her number of T20I balls bowled between CricketArchive (1,591) and Cricinfo (1,597). This results in a T20I bowling average of 20.14 on CricketArchive or 20.29 or Cricinfo. Again, who knows which is correct. (I accidentally inputted her test bowling average here which was an error on my part - it was late where I am!)

4. I forgot to update her WBBL wickets tally but again there seems to be a discrepancy here - you put 92 but CricketArchive has 93. This seems to be a discrepancy with her WBBL player profile. Or is there another source for WBBL stats?

5. Bowling style - I prefer "slow left-arm orthodox" and this is the wording used on Bishan Singh Bedi, Rangana Herath and Daniel Vettori. Is there an agreed standard for this? It doesn't matter too much though.

6. "Queensland Fire" or "Queensland" - in infoboxes I personally prefer to just put the state name and ignore the nickname. For me there's a subtle difference between a state team and a WBBL team like, say, Brisbane Heat. Queensland were originally just Queensland and only added the nickname in the 1990s. At heart they are just Queensland, really. Whereas Brisbane Heat have always been Brisbane Heat and it would be odd to just call them "Brisbane", obviously. The other advantage of just putting "Queensland" is that it protects against nickname changes. Victoria and Western Australia have both dropped their nicknames and Tasmania have changed theirs in recent years so all of the Western Furys, Victorian Spirits and Tasmanian Roars in infoboxes would have to be changed, in theory, at least for players who played before and after the nickname change. I also note that men's players don't generally have, for example, "New South Wales Blues" in their infoboxes (Steve Smith, David Warner, Kurtis Patterson etc.) so for consistency and clarity I personally prefer just the state name. I hope that makes sense!

6. Years or seasons in the infobox - there are advantages and disadvantages to both, IMO. Years looks more visually pleasing, for sure. But I slightly prefer seasons because it makes how many seasons they've played clearer - e.g. 2015–17 could be two or three seasons but 2015/16–2016/17 makes it clear that it's just two. I am also following the precedent set by many articles of Australian players including Adam Gilchrist (a featured article), Ricky Ponting, Brett Lee (used as an example infobox template on Template:Infobox cricketer, Allan Border and Steve Waugh. Are there specific guidelines on this anywhere?

I hope that clears things up and I welcome your thoughts! 25mdvr (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Women's cricket stats
The ICC's classification of official cricket document, effective July 2020, states that "Competitive Women’s Cricket matches are those:

a) Women’s cricket matches of 3 or 4 days’ scheduled duration and of two innings per side played at least at State or Provincial Level, substantially conforming to ICC standard playing conditions and accorded the status of Competitive Women’s Cricket by the relevant Governing Bodies; or

b) Limited overs women’s cricket matches scheduled for one days duration and of one innings per side played either at State or Provincial level or official matches of a touring Test team against State or Provincial level teams, substantially conforming to ICC standard playing conditions and accorded the status of Competitive Women’s Cricket by the relevant Governing Bodies.

c) Twenty20 women’s cricket matches played either at State or Provincial level or official matches of a touring Test team against State, or Provincial level teams, or franchise based teams/competitions, substantially conforming to ICC standard playing conditions and accorded the status of Competitive Women’s Cricket by the relevant Governing Bodies."

While the term "List A" is not specifically used, CricketArchive as the world's foremost cricket database calls it that and it is the primary source for women's cricket stats. Perhaps "Women's Limited Overs" is more appropriate per the ICC document but it's much of a muchness.

Point is, the scorecards from WNCL/WBBL matches are complete enough that statistics derived from them can go on Wikipedia.

The CricketArchive definition of what they call "Women's List A cricket" is, as far as I am aware, identical to "Limited overs women’s cricket matches" mentioned in the ICC document

Women's cricket suffers from a lack of statistical coverage and putting domestic stats on Wikipedia, when currently they are paywalled on CricketArchive, helps to change that.

You say that CricketArchive is "contentious" for women's stats compared to Cricinfo - please provide evidence of this. As far as I am aware, Cricinfo does not provide women's domestic stats at all. Cricket Australia does provide WBBL stats (which is obviously different from overall women's T20 stats) so this is a good resource, if WBBL-only stats are deemed the best option for an infobox.

In summary - what is your evidence that CricketArchive is unsatisfactory? And if you don't want CricketArchive to be used as a source for women's cricket stats that include domestic matches, what is your preferred source? 25mdvr (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

File:WBBL05CapLogoHeat.svg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WBBL05CapLogoHeat.svg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Women's BBL
Rain in the turf. Wet outfield for 30 minutes. It's a very Normal phenomenon. Don't just complicate this. Please stop this edit warring. Kirubar (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wetfield comes itself automatically? Not caused by rain? Kirubar (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The match notes must be needed to have a reference about qualifications. Why are you reverting using Wikipedia instructions that completely irrelevant to this scenario? Kirubar (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Please don't write stories on your own. Nothing in the source about Victorian state as a whole. All about Melbourne Kirubar (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

File:WBBL05CapLogoHurricanes.svg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WBBL05CapLogoHurricanes.svg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Tied matches
Hi. Looks like you do great work on Australian women's cricket, especially for the WBBL. I saw that you have a couple of times reverted my attempts to standardise stats for results on the Australia women's national cricket team, to bring the page in line with all other international team pages. I don't want an edit war, so thought I'd start a conversation. Tied matches are officially recorded as ties, regardless of any tiebreaker that may be used to determine a series winner or a place in the next round of a tournament. For example, when calculating points for the ICC rankings table, both teams are credited with a tie regardless of who won any tiebreaker. I.e. its the same as in football ("soccer"), whereby a penalty shoot out determines who goes through, but the game still counts a tie (draw). The source used for most stats such as this is Cricinfo, which clearly separates ties from wins and losses (although it does show "winning tie" and "losing ties"). I see that your focus is mostly on Australia and I ask that you take consider switching to the usual convention on this page, with clarifier notes (if you wish) to say how many of the tied games were followed by winning or losing tiebreakers. Cheers! Bs1jac (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGS and its implications
Hello. I appreciate, as others have said on this page before me, the work you do on women's Big Bash league stuff. It's important. But...

Can I check that you've read MOS:FLAGS? In particular, the second paragraph starts with "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags..." To my mind this suggests that we use words and flags together where that's at all possible. Later on the section entitled Accompany flags with country names says "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details". This would tend to suggest that using the is preferable to either  and certainly over  which has the unfortunate effect of linking to the country.

I appreciate that the tables are really quite wide. They worked on my screen but you may be concerned about the screen width issue. In this case it may be better to split the table into two - one for the list of players and then one purely for the statistics. This would also allow the summary to be split and any information we have about statistics to be placed to summarise quickly things like leading wicket takers etc...

Could you make sure that you take a look at MOS:FLAGS for me. I appreciate that you don't get involved in any talk page discussions. That's fine by me, but I think that if you disagree with me you'll need to let me know why and what solution you advocate to working around the MOS requirements of this.

Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you going to give me any indication here at all? Thanking an edit or reverting your edits would show that. Otherwise I think I'm going to have to go with the MOS and revert to the version using the cr template. Anything at all that you can do to show me your thoughts would be helpful, but right now not engaging isn't that helpful here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Aus Women Cricket Team
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. You need to provide a source if your information does not match the already attached sources. Please feel free to re-add with sources. Therlinsideman (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

File:WBBL05 Cap Logo Heat.svg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WBBL05 Cap Logo Heat.svg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jonteemil (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

File:WBBL05CapLogoHurricanes2.svg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WBBL05CapLogoHurricanes2.svg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jonteemil (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)