User talk:Sam Vimes/Archive1

Welcome!
Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! And thanks for your contributions so far. I'll just go ahead and ask: based on those contribs, might you by any chance happen to be a Nordic citizen? If so, consider signing up on the pertinent list of Wikipedians: Danes, Finns, Norwegians, Swedes, or others(?). --Wernher 20:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Cricket
Hi

I've seen your very useful contributions to some of WP's cricket articles, just wondered whether you'd be interested in signing up on WikiProject Cricket. It's the place where WPians who edit Cricket sometimes highlight their work or seek advice on how to develop WP's cricket-related pages. You'd be more than welcome. Kind regards, jguk 07:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome - yeah, I have done now. I'll try to write as often as I can. Sam Vimes 08:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey Sam, Would you by any chance belong to Cricketweb.net? If you are, I'm Blackcap_fan from there. Mysticflame 06:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Transclusion
Hi again Sam

I thought I better let you know that the reason why all the English cricket season matches are on pages beginning Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/ is because the text for each match appears in a number of different articles - eg the main English season article, the articles for each of the counties, and the competition article. Where a match write-up will only appear on one page, it's best to keep the text of that match on that page rather than use Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/. For instance, and tell me if I'm wrong, I imagine your write-up of the Antigua & Barbuda Presidents XI v Pakistan game, will only appear on the Pakistanis in West Indies in 2005 page. Kind regards, and keep up the good work! jguk 15:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * D'oh. Makes perfect sense of course, just thought I was supposed to archive all the write-ups in one "folder", I suppoe - but there's probably not gonna be any other linkage of those matches, so this makes more sense. I've written a WI v Pak 1st ODI report now, and followed your advice - that stands on the main tour page without using Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/ Sam Vimes 15:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently there is a way of transcluding articles in the main namespace - which I hadn't realised. I've been advised that this is preferable as it makes it easier for mirror sites to pick up what we've written. Therefore I've started moving all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket pages to 2005 English cricket season/ pages. These can be transcluded by using. Kind regards, jguk 21:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back
Good to see you back after your 4 days away. I'm afraid my write up of the Second Bangladesh Test might not be as good as what you would have written - but I didn't know when you were returning.

Incidentally, I don't know if you've seen WikiProject Cricket/Collaboration of the fortnight. The first one was the Ashes, which is now on Peer review before going to Featured article candidates. Also, Sydney Riot of 1879 is current on the featured article candidates page. If you would like to lend your support or offer constructive comments, that would be welcome. The page for this is Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879. The vote's on a real knife-edge at the moment - it has 75% support, but needs 80% to be certain. Keep up the good work. Kind regards, jguk 18:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the welcome-back. I might be missing for a few weekend days - usually go to some places without internet connection (yeah, they still exist *sigh*). I'm sure the report is more than good enough, I might beef it up with a bit of stuff on the first two innings if I can get hold of reports. And I'll update the averages. :)


 * As for the CotF, I've seen it - but not voted yet, I think. Think the WI page needs some major cutdown and reorganisation before it makes an FA - the Sydney Riot one is really good, though, I'll get a vote up there ASAP. Sam Vimes 19:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I should have said the current COTF is Laws of cricket. If you have any ideas of how to improve that page, they will be appreciated. Also, feel free to nominate your own suggestions for the COTF, jguk 19:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's ok - have a good time. I won't be doing much editing on Monday though, so I'll have to leave the England v Australia Twenty20 to you! :) jguk 22:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, don't forget and . I hadn't even noticed the second one of these yesterday! :)


 * Onto it. Along with the Sunday League matches. Sam Vimes 20:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Norwegian
Do you know the new Norwegian? . I have just added a number of interwiki links and if you know nn, it would be nice to add one more to the list. Regards,  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Aye, I'll try and get one up soonish. Just need to catch up with three days offline Sam Vimes 18:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well done with the . Thanks =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:02, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Shastri
Thanks for the suggestions. I have extended the surnames. Don't know what to do with the county matches. The most that I can do is lookup the scorecards and mention the major innings. Tintin 16:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello
I'll be back helping out on 2005 English cricket season soon. Nice to see Surrey well on the way to the Twenty20 quarter-finals! And I've just started 2005 and 2005/6 Sri Lankan cricket season too:) jguk 28 June 2005 21:03 (UTC)


 * Don't worry - I shan't be going moving any pages back. My only concern about the moves was whether some fool would add them all to VfD. We'll have to fight that battle later, jguk 28 June 2005 21:11 (UTC)

England v Australia 23 June 2005
Have you got a write-up of this match, or are we still wanting one? Kind regards, jguk 2 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do it yourself. I've been WP'ing all day and need a break from it! Shame we couldn't quite make it (but at least the Aussie's can't gloat either)! jguk 2 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

2005 English cricket season
Could you add all your match reports that you've held in reserve, as it were, now? I'd like to get the season fully up to date this weekend, but don't want to duplicate your work. Thanks, jguk 8 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)


 * Sam, I can help - but that would mean that I rather than you would be credited for the addition in the history. If you don't mind that, I'll help move them all - if you do, and I'll understand if you do, I'll let you move them yourself, jguk 8 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)

Good work on Irish cricket team. You should nominate it for Did you know, jguk 18:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Super Sub"
I was watching the one day matches between England and Australia, the ones where they had Power Plays, and they also had another strange thing I have never heard of. They were using "Super Subs". What is a super sub? Wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article about it. By the way, can't wait till the ashes. Borb 15:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. So its just like a sub thats allowed to happen for no reason  but is irreversible. Now I know what it is, i don't like it either. I suppose they had to call it super sub to distinguish between a normal sub. I hope it doesn't happen in test cricket. Was the recent england v. australia series (Natwest series i think) the first to use this rule? Borb 16:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Argh, I knew I was getting confused somewhere along the way. You see, I would have been keeping up with all the one day cricket but since its now only on sky sports I can't and I can only watch the highlights on channel 4 at about midnight. I must have watched only a couple of the natwest series matches, but only the england v. australia ones. I saw the final when they had a tie and I remember them saying that they would share the title. But then I must have forgot about that and was watching the natwest challenge highlights thinking that it was the same series. I know that the ashes is going to be an channel 4, are all test mathces still on channel 4? My mum said after last years england v. west indies npower test series that all matches were going to sky but she might have meant just the ODIs. Borb 16:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest
Could you clarify why you think that anyone would be specifically interested in Matthew 1:9 on its own? (rather than the Genealogy of Jesus as a whole)     17:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This, I feel, is not a matter to be taken up on Votes for deletion - rather, consensus should be achieved with the editors in question. Apparently, they feel that this is the most reasonable division method - it's what the book itself uses, after all. Go to the relevant talk pages of the main editors, instead of involving a myriad of users with no particular interest in the topic Sam Vimes 17:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

MSN
My email (and MSN id) is thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk - feel free to page me if you see me there. I probably log into IRC more often though, jguk 09:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Cricket
Thank you for your kind welcome. I imagine my contributions will at first be limited to cleaning up typos, but part of the reason I joined was to help me learn and therefore eventually be able to contribute more - the Cricket portal seems to have more information on cricket than any single book I've found. I really got into the sport late last year and am still picking up its many, many peculiarities!

I also joined to help me get stuck into something - to a recent newcomer like myself, the English WP seems very well developed and therefore hard to contribute to - is there a page that offers good guidance to newcomers on how to get involved? I've grasped the basics (such as how to edit, NPOV etc.) but would definitely like to able to get stuck in more. Thanks! -- High (Hopes) 11:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Surrey v Warwickshire 18 July 2005
Haakon, I've just come back from this match - and what a strange match it was. Surrey first threw it away losing loads of wickets early on, and whilst Rampers helped a bit, Surrey were well behind a par score. A wicket first ball for Surrey, and with Surrey having a chance because of how overcast it was, the umpires started to have a mare. They should have come off after two and a bit overs because of rain - but stayed on, let Warwickshire lose a wicket - waited till 4.4 overs had passed, realised that it took 5 overs to make a match and they were being incredibly unfair to Warwickshire, and went off. Duckworth/Lewis, as you know, always favours the side in the lead when there is a break for rain - so Surrey benefited there. But Warwickshire hit back, eliminating almost all of the deficit quickly - but losing wickets in the process. Finally it got to the stage where the Bears needed three to win off the last ball. With Warwickshire eight wickets down, and Surrey having lost eight wickets in reaching their total, there was a long delay as the umpires were consulted and dithered over what would happen if Warwickshire scored two runs.

Ultimately, play recommenced. Warwickshire ran one run, at which point, surprisingly, one of their players looked as if he was celebrating, they then took the second, and stopped, knowing that to go for a third would have been suicidal (to say the least). Surrey celebrated. The tannoy announced the Surrey win. Tickets went on sale to Surrey members for the Semi-Finals/Final day and (with my folks already having their tickets from way ago - as they were optimistic) I queued for mine (as I was pessimistic at Surrey's chances of winning). As I was going downstairs from the pavilion to the ticket office, my folks were leaving the top bit of the pavilion, only to see the scorer, Mrs Booth, come out of her booth, announce to all "why have they announced a Surrey win, we're not ready yet!" and rush into the Ladies.

Having acquired my ticket (and three more in the expectation of selling them to mates) I returned to the pavilion for a slash - and there I heard over the tannoy that there was to be a bowl-off. Finishing my business, I rushed, with my folks to the bottom bit of the pavilion seating to see Warwickshire practising, and Surrey arguing with the none-too-popular umpires. Umpire Constant returned to the pavilion to consult Lord-knows-what, and returned. Mrs Booth at some stage joined them on the pitch. Finally it was later announced that the captains had agreed to a bowl-off (ie the umpires - who were now being booed whenever they came close to the crowd - had no idea whatsoever what to do when scores and wickets were tied on the Duckworth/Lewis).

I've never seen a bowl-off before (other than highlights on telly once), so this was my first (and I'll have to see how the piccis came out), but apparently five bowlers are selected from each side and they each bowl two balls overarm at unguarded stumps - with bowlers from each team alternating after each bowler had bowled his two balls. After all five bowlers from each side had bowled their two balls, it was two-all. Then came sudden death. One bowler (of the five originally selected) from one side bowled - and then another bowler from the other side. If the scores were uneven after that, we had a winner - a sort of cricketing penalty shoot-out. After the stumps had been hit only four times in twenty attempts first off, Warwickshire hit the stumps first off in the sudden death round. Azhar Mahmood thankfully equalised for Surrey. Warwickshire then missed, before Tim Murtagh hit, ran celebrating to the side of the pitch, took his shirt off, and was followed by celebrating team-mates.

An extraordinary match, with Surrey winning twice, two unpopular umpires, and many people missing the "match" for real, as they'd left after Surrey had first been announced as winners. Thankfully, after wondering whether my tickets were not so good a purchase after all, we won.

In short - you'd better write up the match (as I'd be a primary source), and I'll try to add some piccis. But one result I didn't expect was for Surrey to win 4-3! jguk 22:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

2005 Ashes
Are the 2005 Ashes being covered in Wikipedia anywhere? Commander Keane 09:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Australian cricketers
Haakon

Please keep Category:Australian cricketers as complete as possible - these categories by nationality make it very easy to see if we have an article on any given cricketer, as long as they are complete. They pretty much were before you changed them! :) All the best, jguk 11:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops, forgot that advantage. I removed them because they were all covered by the subcategories, but I see now that they might be useful to have. D'oh. I'll start the slow process of moving them back again tomorrow... Sam Vimes 13:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, oops again, didn't see that you already did it. Thanks!


 * Can either of you explain why we have Category:Australian cricketers AND Category:Australian test cricketers? (Non-test playing cricketers will be in (for example) Category:Western Australia cricketers).  Surely one will suffice, and preferably the latter -  or has this been discussed elsewhere or is there something obvious I can't see? - Ian &equiv; talk 05:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

By having every Australian cricketer in Category:Australian cricketers we have a complete list of every Australian cricketer that we have an article on, which helps when searching for a cricketer. Also by checking it, it should help reduce the number of duplicate articles (currently we only have Andy Bichel and Andrew Bichel that need to be merged). Otherwise you'd be in the unenviable position of having to know that the cricketer you're searching for played for Western Australia, say. If you're not 100% sure, you'll end up also having to check the Queensland, South Australian, NSW, Victorian and Tasmanian cricketers too before working out that we have no article on that player.

Personally I'd get rid of the Australian bowlers, Australian batsmen, Australian all-rounders and Australian wicket-keepers categories - as I don't see a real need for them, but I know others disagree with me, jguk 06:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * fair enough, but why have Category:Australian test cricketers? - Ian &equiv; talk 08:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not all Australian cricketers are Test cricketers, and it would be useful if, some time in the future, the Test cricketers category became complete. I've already started List of English Test cricketers (though it still needs a lot of work), but as an aim, we should look to have an article on every cricketer to have played at official international level, jguk 12:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So to recap, a Test cricketer will be in Category:Australian test cricketers AND Category:Australian cricketers, and a non-Test cricketer in Category:Australian cricketers only. Both will ALSO be in Category:Western Australia cricketers (say) ? Ian &equiv; talk 14:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Bingo! jguk 15:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that this thread is getting very fragmented, but can I ask you to look at User:Hesperian's comment on my talk page User_talk:Ianbrown. The point he makes is that Category:Australian test cricketers is a subcategory of Category:Australian cricketers and therefore an article should be in one or the other, but not both. Ian &equiv; talk 01:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ken Rutherford
Whee! Quick work correcting my link on the Ken Rutherford article! I went to add an extra line I'd just thought of and got an edit conflict. (A cricket fan from Norway?) Grutness...  wha?  11:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey!
Thanks for the welcome, Sam.

I wanted to write back to you and tell you how much of a fan I am of Terry Pratchett! I absolutely love the City Watch characters, I just finished The Fifth Elephant and I'm about to start that one where he goes back in time... whatever it's called. Anyway, excellent choice for the username, there. T-mccool

Andrew Symonds
Hi Sam, I'm sorry about not stating a source for the info about Andrew Symonds. The reason was that I couldn't find one on the internet. But I sure that I have heard it while watching cricket commentary given on TV by established cricket commentators. He is supposed to have an aboriginal descent. If you are still unsure, you may ask your other contacts on wikipedia cricket about it. That would help us both. Cheers

Good job!!
Ya I guess you are right. Its also true that Jason Giillespie has aboriginal descent. Good that you verified my claim. Keep contributing! Cheers!!!

Re your revert of my page move
You left a message on my talk re my moving a page. I have replied on Talk:New Zealanders in Zimbabwe in 2005. For the sake of continuity, can we discuss it there please. Cheers. Moriori 21:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

List of English Test cricketers
That was quick work - I mention it one night, 200 more or so added the next day. Plus Ian's just added all the Aussies in double-quick time! Must be my go to add some English Test cricketers tonight - maybe you can have a go tomorrow. Of course, there are 8 other lists of Test cricketers to come, a list of Supertest cricketers and lots of lists of ODI cricketers to go! jguk 19:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Australian Test cricketers
Sam, re your comment on my talk page: see discussion on the English list Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Regards - Ian ≡ talk 23:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Listening to the Test?
Hi Haakon

Listening to the Test - quite a thriller (somewhat unfortunately as I'd rather we'd got another 150 runs, but there goes). And have you seen, just under 400 more English Test cricketers to write up now - I can see Ian beating us with his Aussie ones if I'm not careful, jguk 15:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, can't say I am - dial-up and the high quality broadcasts the BBC offers means I have to stick to cricinfo. Right now there's some too loose bowling, though...bring Giles on and try to tie Clarke down, I say Sam Vimes 16:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Javed Miandad picture
Sorry I wasn't aware of that. I will try to find a picture without a copyright and use it. --Rehanyazdani 02:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Would a picture by Reuters be acceptable? --Rehanyazdani 02:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Full Scorecards
Hi Sam. Why don't the indivivual cricket matches covered in wikipedia have full scorecard to go with them? I admit they are of little interest to tha average person most of the time but sometimes they are very interesting. For example, the second ashes test that just finished, it is insteresting to look at australia's second innings scorecard and see jusr how many runs the tail enders managed compared to the 'better' batsmen. By the way, watching the last morning of that test match had me right on the edge of my seat. I couldn't believe it, it looked like australia were going to win again. Thrilling stuff. Borb 21:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As you said, they're of little interest to the average person. Another few reasons are that: 1) they take up a lot of space, 2) they are a primary source and hence not suitable for wikipedia, and 3) they're linked to anyway (although perhaps it could have been made clearer that the little external link with a number on the end links to the scorecard - I'll consider putting "Full scorecard" on those links). Sam Vimes 06:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yea maybe they should be linked to more clearly. But how about having them on wikipedia like England v Australia 21-25 July 2005/Full scorecard? Then there wouldnt be any space problems and I think its better than having them on an external site. Wikipedia is supposed to contain almanac information too so I think it would be suitable. Borb 20:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thing is, the match page will probably be deleted anyway and the content go onto The 2005 Ashes - there's quite a lot of people who feel that individual matches aren't encyclopedic. So a subpage of a page which is deleted could be very, very tricky (although a more important match like a national game could have more chance of survival). Plus, it'd take a fair bit of time to do for me. I suppose there's no rule against it, and I wouldn't mind if it was added, but it won't be by me Sam Vimes 20:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Appologies for butting in here, but have you considered putting the full scorecards on Wikisource? As a Wikimedia project, you can have a tag and semi-internal link to the content, with no queries as to its encyclopaedicness. I don't know much about Wikisource's criteria for inclusion, but I'd say a scorecard is a good fit. Thryduulf 23:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikisource takes "statistical data" at least - it's probably stretching it a bit, but at the same time, I doubt it's possible to have copyright on a scorecard? Then, the only issue is my own laziness Sam Vimes 06:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see no real benefit in putting the scorecards onto Wikisource. They are already a click away (sourced from cricinfo, cricketarchive, the BBC or whatever). Why do we need to keep them on a wikipage? jguk 06:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that its better to have things internal and wikisource is almost internal. I think that the scorecards could be neatened up if they were put into a wiki too, put into a table and have colour added. Would look much nicer. Also I think something like a scorecard is exempt from copyright as it is information that could simply have been written down by someone observing the game, not just the official scorers. I would be happy to make scorecards for wikisource. Borb 11:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Go ahead! It could be useful, I agree Sam Vimes 11:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

A Canadian cricket fan?
Seems like you may have a Canadian rival:) (see England v Australia 11-15 August 2005). The dangers of keeping your cricket reports hidden to the end of the match! jguk 06:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Indian Test cricketers
Thanks for filling up the stats. I had no idea how to do it. Tintin 15:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Australian Test cricketers
Sam, Thanks for converting overs to balls. That must have taken ages! -- Ian ≡ talk 00:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Cricket Bio-stubs
Hello, Sam. I wasn't aware of this stub category so thanks for pointing it out as I will be adding quite a lot of cricketers in the 17th and 18th centuries. All the best. --Jack 18:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

cricketbio-stub
For updating all the bio articles, you get a cookie -- Ian ≡ talk 01:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team
I was wondering about the length myself (which was the reason for asking the feedback). For the time being I'll go ahead and finish 1990s and 2000s, and then come back and edit the bloated stuff. Tintin 08:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sam, can you please comment on the []. Edit it if you feel like it.

I'll slice some of the scores from 1970s, but it is too important a decade (and a nice one to write about !). There are four successive important series in the middle (two against India, one each against Aus and England) none of which can be ignored without writing a couple of sentences.

1960s, in my personal opinion, is fairly readable. Tintin 08:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Bothams Ashes / Australia in England 1981
Hmm... Thanks for creating the stub, I didn't realise I was creating a double redirect when I reverted the blankings, the page just kept reappearing on Special: Short pages as an empty page... :/ Usrnme h8er 08:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:Cricket Invite
Thanks for the invite. I'd be glad to lend a hand where I can so I've added my name to the list. It's good to know there's a group looking after these articles - I've got a few suggestions for restructuring but I'll post them on the project discussion rather than here! Hope my edits were useful/interesting. MattDP 08:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:August 2005 in sports
Hey. Thanks for the heads-up. --Ngb 19:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Take this!
Hats off to the person from Norway who puts us 'test' members to shame with his awesome contributions to the sport of cricket. May he lead the Norwegian cricket team to World Cup Victory! =Nichalp  «Talk»=  18:12, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the nice comments! :) Sam Vimes 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Administrator?
I've seen the fabulous work you do, particularly with regard to the greatest sport known to man and feel that you would make a good administrator. Let me know on my talk page if you would accept a nomination. 13:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes, and good luck. Thryduulf 14:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know your name was Haakon. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  07:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Clearly you did or you wouldn't have been able to make that post:) jguk 07:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * He he, but I saw your post mentioning his name elsewhere. How did you know jguk? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wonders of MSN chats. Sam Vimes 10:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What's with the pages on individual cricket games? I accept that they may be notable, but it looks like you're not even trying to write an encyclopedia article about them - they're not in article format, for starters, but even worse, the whole article is filled with opinion and POV. I'd have to take an axe to the thing to get it anything resembling neutral. Couldn't you do a better job on these? Ambi 14:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've also objected to your adminship nomination on these same grounds. That article doesn't even try to follow the Manual of Style or the NPOV policy, and they are perhaps the two most fundamental on Wikipedia. If this is at all representative, you've really got some learning to do. Ambi 14:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * First, I'd like to explain why they are not in article format. This is because the content is transcluded onto pages like Australian Women in England in 2005 - which, you'll notice, does follow the Manual of Style - which a proper introduction to the subject at hand, headings as it should, etc. Second, about NPOV - well, IMO, an article about a sport event should praise those that did well in the event. I'll quote a few phrases so you can see what I mean. "Tail-end heroics from the last test" indicates that the last batters did rather well in the last Test - which they did, 240 runs were scored for the last 3 wickets, which is more than Australia managed in all the other innings all series. "The last day started brilliantly for England" - well, if two people got out with successive balls, how would you describe it other than brilliant?. "England powered on, Brunt staking her claim for Player of the Match" - they made runs and Brunt played well. There's nothing conflicting between NPOV and praising people for their achievements. Sam Vimes 14:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the transclusion issue is irrelevant. The manual of style applies to every article in the main space, and that article makes no attempt to follow it. Thus it has issues, and needs severe cleanup. Secondly, it's possible to say everything there a) more neutrally, and b) in a more encyclopedic, and less newsworthy style. This is precisely why - just as in the rest of the encyclopedia - "the last batters did rather well in the last test" is better than "tail-end heroics from the last test". The latter is both taking a defined stance and using language that would be more appropriate in a newspaper. Wikipedia does not praise people for their achievements. Wikipedia sums up their achievements and provides a neutral perspective on them. Ambi 16:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The individual articles are going to be merged in a month anyway, and the only way you can reach them is to press random page for quite a long time. Secondly, from how I can interpret the NPOV policy, it does not take a stance on what kind of language you use to describe an event - rather, it describes how you should describe controversial issues, where there are views from both sides. In this case, few can argue about the terms used Sam Vimes 17:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * NPOV covers all articles, not just those that are controversial. In this case, language like "tail-end heroics" is expressing an opinion, and that just isn't on. Ambi 23:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * IMO, it's just a stronger way of saying "the last batters did rather well in the last Test." That does not convey the same amount of information about how they turned the game around from lost cause to potential victory. Sam Vimes 08:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Commiserations, your grace - there is no rhyme nor reason to the RFA process sometimes. Give them a few months to see how the articles pan out: I'm sure the result will be different next time. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing definite from what I can see
but have you seen the last paragraph of this? jguk 19:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. And I bet Channel 4 have demanded millions for the rights. *mutter* Sam Vimes 06:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Cricket
Sam_Vimes said: Yep, same here. Every morning now I see about 200 articles fixed up by you on top of my watchlist :D Great work!

I'm hoping that's not a bad thing - that I'm not overloading your recent changes watchlist..! Rather surprisingly, I'm finding this work kinda therepeutic at the same time..! Should I be worried?! Thank you. Bobo192 | Edits 06:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

International cricket in 2005
Ian ≡ talk 01:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)