Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 10

C L R James
I note that BlackJack moved this from C. L. R. James a few days ago on the grounds (see the edit summary) that the style with full stops is an "American anachronism". Personally I don't agree, and would prefer the original to have been left (we have W. G. Grace and M. J. K. Smith, after all), but even if it's better to change it, I feel that CLR James (currently a double redirect) would be preferable; the style without punctuation but with spaces is extremely rare on Wikipedia. Thoughts please? (And while we're at it, does the fame of Beyond a Boundary mean that it should have its own article?) Loganberry (Talk) 23:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * MoS says C. L. R. James. I would prefer C.L.R. James; CLR James would be ok.  C L R James would be least favourable, tied with Cyril Lionel Robert James.  As for Beyond a Boundary - I think it deserves an article...sadly and with embarrassment I must admit that I have never read it :( - Guettarda 23:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a little surprised at your favourite style; if you'd said C.L.R. James I'd have been less so, but why have full stops after only two of the three initials? Loganberry (Talk) 23:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ooops! Sorry. That's what I meant.  Though, why not just drop one full stop at random?  :) - Guettarda 23:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's CLR James on the cover of my copy. I'd prefer that. Beyond a Boundary probably deserves an article, but frankly I was less than impressed by it. -dmmaus 23:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good to hear that. Agree with both comments - that BaB deserves an article but it is very overrated. I have a feeling that most of the new readers consider it a good book because it is 'supposed to be' a good book. Tintin 08:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Like Guettarda I have yet to read it (the shame!), but have just picked it up remaindered for a pound, so will have to see. Of course it's a significant work from a political as well as a cricketing point of view, which probably colours (especially) newspaper reviewers' opinions of it. Loganberry (Talk) 03:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is proposed on Naming conventions (listed as 'under consideration') that initials have full stops. Certainly this is what I've always thought was the accepted standard. Raven4x4x 09:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I wonder why Wisden have adopted the so-called "American anachronisms" - at least in my copy from 2003, people are listed as M. E. Trescothick, M. P. Vaughan, A. Flintoff and J. L. Langer. If both the MoS and Wisden write it like that, I think we've got the common way of writing initial names. Sam Vimes 09:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a stickler for things like that, and I'm pretty sure that W. G. Grace, S. R. E. Turner etc. is standard British English. Stephen Turner 10:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * He changed G. B. Buckley to G B Buckley too. Stephen Turner 10:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I prefer no spaces and no dots. The internet is different from printed text, where (at least outside of newsprint) the style of having both dots and spaces is still used - however, this style does not look good aesthetically on screen. Unfortunately too many of our American readers are stuck with what was drummed in them at school - we were lucky in the UK - we were never taught grammar! jguk 18:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are arguing from an aesthetic judgement, which is subjective. I'd rather worry about grammatical convention. Stephen Turner 22:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I suspect I know how BlackJack got the idea that in British English we don't use the dots. There is a slightly strange convention in British English &mdash; but I believe not in American English &mdash; that if the last letter of an abbreviation is the last letter of the word, we omit the dot. For example, we write "Dr Stephen Turner", whereas Americans would write "Dr. Stephen Turner". Of course, that rule doesn't apply in this case. Stephen Turner 09:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Lets put an end to this debate and redirect all the acronyms to Cyril Lionel Robert James. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  06:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to prolong this debate any further, but I'm not sure about that suggestion. Would you file W. G. Grace at William Gilbert Grace too? I think if a person is best known by their initials, that's where the article should reside. (Although with redirects it doesn't matter too much). In any case, don't we usual omit the middle name, so it would be Cyril James? Stephen Turner 09:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've just come back from holiday and I'm amazed to see this debate taking place. Americans use periods everywhere. They even SAY the word ad nauseum. Modern grammatical convention in English, which is English not "British English", is to leave out periods after initials and at the end of abbreviations like "Dr"; but not after abbreviations like "etc." where the last letter of the abbreviation is not the last letter of the full word "etcetera". As cricket is a sport that is essentially of the English-speaking world outside the USA (i.e., not U.S.A.), we should use English conventions and not American ones (although I believe most younger Americans nowadays try to leave out periods).

Having said all that, I do favour CLR James rather than C L R James because the former is easier to type. Note that I wrote USA and not U S A above and I do the same with BBC and so on. --Jack 11:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

How about a vote?
(and I'm only talking here about those cricketers better known in the style of initial/s then surname, as in Messrs James, Grace, Fry etc.)
 * Option 1: C. L. R. James
 * Option 2: C.L.R. James
 * Option 3: CLR James
 * Option 4: C L R James (current article)
 * Option 5: Cyril Lionel Robert James

Voting

 * Option 3. This is what I would enter firstly into a search box if I was looking for a person and I reckon it looks the best on screen also. 2nd choice would be option 4. -- Ian &equiv; talk 01:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2 or 3Tintin 01:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1, slightly, on the grounds that it's what we have already (W. G. Grace etc) and that Wisden uses it. I wouldn't have any particular problem with 3, so long as Grace and co were also changed to that style at some point. 5 is ridiculous unless we're going to have Warnakulasuriya Patabendige Ushantha Joseph Chaminda Vaas.
 * (Thank you, Nichalp =;) )

That leaves 2 and 4, which I oppose on the grounds that they're rarely used. Loganberry (Talk) 02:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Option 2, (or Option 1, since it conforms to the naming convention) - Guettarda 02:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3. Second choice 1. -dmmaus 05:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Option 1 for reasons of grammatical convention, followed by Option 3 for conciseness and ease of typing. Of course, all the other combinations should redirect to whichever's chosen. Stephen Turner 10:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Option 1. With redirects, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5 : I feel that the article should be under the title of the christened name of the induvidual. WG Grace, CB Fry etc can all be redirected to the full title. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * and same for Mr Vaas and Mr Laxman? -- Ian &equiv; talk 05:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We can make an exception for Chaminda Vaas :D. As for VVS Laxman, the acronym is the legal name: See Indian family name =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. You learn something every day! -- Ian &equiv; talk 08:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: At the moment, and taking Tintin and Guettarda's first choices to be the option they mention first, we have:


 * First-choice votes: three for option 1, two for option 2, three for option 3, none for options 4 and one for option 5.
 * Second-choice votes (where stated): two for option 1, none for option 2, two for option 3, one for option 4 and none for option 5.
 * On that basis, options 4 and 5 look as though they're going to struggle to make any headway, while option 2 is doing better than those, but still lagging behind a bit. Options 1 and 3 are tied for first place. Assuming this pattern were to continue (which it may or may not do), then there's not going to be a clear consensus for one of those two styles over the other. What do we do then? Loganberry (Talk) 00:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The BC/BCE debate of WP:Cricket? ;) I suppose we could say that if it's a tie, then the Manual of Style presides over article names, but people are free to write whatever they write in articles - as long as they're consistent. Note that I don't care either way, hence haven't voted. Sam Vimes 06:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief, don't let's go down that road! However, here's a proposal, which fits in with what you say: editors can use either style 1 or style 3 as a matter of personal preference, so long as they always create a redirect from the other style. Styles 2, 4 and 5 should not be used without good reason (there's always the chance that someone will deliberately spell their name in an odd way). I realise that that's a little controversial given that option 2 has received some support, but it would allow both the common American style (and there are American cricketers!) and the common British style to be used with little fuss, just as we can use UK/US spelling as appropriate. Loganberry (Talk) 13:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the American preference for having both dots and spaces will remain - even though they look incredibly unaesthetic, particularly on the internet and particularly for those with lots of names. H. M. R. K. B. Herath seems a silly place to have an article that would look much better at HMRKB Herath, but we'll have lots of American style Nazis on our backs if we try to adopt a different style, jguk 07:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We should have an article on A. R. R. A. P. W. R. R. K. B. Amunugama Tintin 20:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * He got mentioned in Wisden as an "elaborate joke" Sam Vimes 21:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A dreadful omission that I have now corrected with a stub (see A. R. R. A. P. W. R. R. K. B. Amunugama). Please help expand it! jguk 20:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Your wish is my command. ;) Sam Vimes 20:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is one fine scorecard. The last foour batsmen for Kurunegala were JAMW Kumara, MAWR Madurasinghe, ARRAPWRRKB Amunugama and HMRKB Herath while one of the openers was SNRHMSB Malmeewala. Tintin 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Option 2 as per http://www.clrjamesinstitute.org Vivenot 13:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Option 1 is nonsense and completely outdated as a style and a convention. Option 2 is also outdated but is prefereable to option 1 because it is easier to type. Just because Wisden uses periods as in W. G. Grace is no precedent; Wisden still follows the conventions that date back to its Victorian origin. All of options 3, 4 and 5 are fine but I don't think option 5 should be used if the person was known by his initials as CLR James undoubtedly was; and as WG Grace was. Although I have used C L R James in the article (and also G B Buckley), I agree that Option 3 is the best convention for modern grammatical correctness and usage, as well as being the most economical for typing. --Jack 11:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Option 3 is the preferred style as it meets modern grammatical convention and is also the most economical both to use and in terms of resource. Periods are an outdated convention but BlackJack is incorrect to assert that they are an American convention. Some Americans use them and some do not; it's the same as in England and has more to do with age than nationality. My second choice would be option 4. I have no problem with option 5 if the person was known by one of his forenames but CLR James was always known by his initials so option 5 is inapplicable here. Option 2 is outdated and cumbersome; option 1 is ridiculously so. --GeorgeWilliams 11:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Another comment and a question It seems that option 3 is the only one of the five that does not arouse specific opposition, and is therefore the only option that could be said to enjoy a consensus. That being so, it would seem sensible to make option 3 our primary convention, though as option 1 is common elsewhere on Wikipedia we probably ought to create redirects from there. The fact that it may be outdated is not an argument for refusing to let people see it - I note that the Hurricane Rita article gives the central pressure of the storm in inches as well as in millibars, and some articles about older storms give inches first. (And don't let's start on whether millbars themselves are out of date! =;) )

As for Jack's point about Wisden, I think it is relevant: if that's what people see in Wisden, then it's possible that they'll look under the same thing here. I feel that what readers actually look for is more important than what we may or may not think is correct, and don't like the idea of our being rigidly prescriptive on the matter. (I think it's fine to create redirects from any other style one likes, of course; "redirects are cheap".) So... would anyone actually object to option 3? Loganberry (Talk) 12:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Loganberry in his summary. Lets go with CLR James and WG Grace to conclude this discussion.  --Jack 14:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for agreeing what is "modern" amongst yourselves, and thanks also for the brickbats thrown at our American friends; however, despite it being condemned as nonsense, completely outdated and Victorian, I still prefer option 1, and, to avoid the rather spurious argument that option 3 has no objections and so must be the consensus choice, I object to option 3 too. I can't see why articles on cricketers should diverge from the standard elsewhere on Wikipedia.  If you think X. Y. Zzzz is incorrect, get it changed in the Manual of Style.  We should not plough our own furrow.  -- ALoan (Talk)


 * Firstly, the Manual of Style is not policy; indeed, its own lead section says, Clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required. Secondly, I think (though I'm ready to be corrected on this) that there is a consensus that option 3 is not actually objectionable; consensus is not the same as unanimity. Thirdly, this whole thing only blew up in the first place because an article was moved from option 1 style to option 4. And finally, Wikipedia doesn't have a single standard anyway; if it did, the whole thing would probably be written in American English.


 * As far as I'm concerned, if some people want to carry on with option 1, that's entirely fine, and if other people want to use option 3, that's entirely fine as well. Which is, in fact, what the nascent style guide on the bottom of our project page actually says. Loganberry (Talk) 22:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Adopting your numbering:
 * I didn't say MoS was policy: what I said was that we should have a good reason if we are going to diverge from the accepted norm, otherwise non-WP:C people will just move the articles to where they think (and the MoS says) they ought to be, creating extra work for everyone.
 * I was mainly objecting to the characterisation above that an absence of objections to one option (in what was essentially approval voting) implied a consensus for one option. It seems that there is no clear consensus, since various people voted for various different options.  Ideally, consensus should mean that everyone is happy to live with a particular result, notwithstanding that they may have a more preferred option.  If I was in a minority of one, I would defer to the majority and accept the consensus, but the vote here seems pretty evenly split.
 * Indeed: that is why we should have an accepted standard, otherwise articles will appear all over the place. OTOH, the problem largely goes away if redirects are added for the alteratives.
 * In terms of language, Wikipedia does have a single standard: articles about substantially American topics should follow American standards of spelling, typography, etc; articles about substantially British/International/non-American topics should follow British/International/non-American standards; and articles about topics that are both American and British/International/non-American should follow the standards adopted by the first author. The problem here is that there is no clear divide between the "American" standard and the "non-American" standard: it is quite normal for a full stop/period to be used after initials in non-American usage.
 * However, on the basis that we can't seem to agree, I think the nascent style guide on the WP:C page has it about right: people should create pages where they think best, and the wiki process will ultimately put them in the right place (wherever that is). I do not think option 3 should be our primary convention.  -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I think you're right, I was using "consensus" rather too loosely; my apologies for that. Secondly, I think part of the problem is that I've been indecisive and didn't stick to what I said in my earlier comment. There, I proposed that: "editors can use either style 1 or style 3 as a matter of personal preference, so long as they always create a redirect from the other style". That would mean that readers would always find the article they wanted, which is the most important thing. I don't feel strongly enough about this subject to get into fights about it (I'm not accusing you or anyone else of trying to do that of course; it's a general observation) and frankly I'd rather spend my time writing actual articles. Final word? I agree that the style guide as it now stands will do. Loganberry (Talk) 13:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Option 3 it just "feels" right and is the shortest.  DaGizza  00:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with ALoan. I've no idea where this idea that the "W. G. Grace" style is outdated came from. On the contrary, it seems to me to be the most common style in current usage. However, I don't object to option 3 either. I think authors should use whichever of those they prefer, as indeed the style guide currently says. Stephen Turner 11:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As a new "member", I am reluctant to get involved in such a heartfelt debate, but I really have to add my voice to those of Stephen Turner and ALoan; there is nothing oldfashioned about "W. G. Grace" as a convention. I also agree with ALoan that there is no consensus emerging from this vote (now there's a surprise). Given this lack, the MoS seems a good place to look. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I just realised there's a sixth option/style: C.L.R.James which no-one has mentioned yet. On that basis, I'll be bold and update the style guide as this being another non-preferred style. -- Ian &equiv; talk 11:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. Definitely non-preferred. That looks sooo ugly... Sam Vimes 13:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking at the "local usage" thing, and since we still claim James even though he spent much of his life in England and was actually banned from entering the country by the PNM government...the Trinidad Guardian and the Trinidad Express appear to use CLR James...so on those grounds I am leading towards option 3. Guettarda 14:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think its high time that we put an end to this silly debate. 10 days have passed and we've argued on minor fullstops and spaces. If redirects are in place, I don't think any reader be offended by these minute details. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  14:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Women's Writing Woeful!
Are there any female participants or anybody with a good knowledge of Women's cricket in WikiProject Cricket? I think we need some because every single article on women's cricket is terrible. I think all of them are stubs! DaGizza 07:16 20 September 2005


 * Yeah - it's been pointed out for quite a while, but no one has actually gotten round to fixing it. I think a good start would be to make List of Australian Women's Test cricketers, for example. Sam Vimes 07:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps User:Petaholmes aka 'nixie' could help. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I can honestly say that I don't know a thing about womens cricket, or most sport for that matter. But I think a better way to build up the area would be to start with major competitions, teams and then down to players since many players may not be interesting enough for a biography article (i.e. too little information about to write an article longer than a stub).--nixie 10:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, I noticed yesterday that Rachael Heyhoe-Flint is still red. Stephen Turner 09:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Entirely agreed - and I say that as the author as a few of those stubs! I think "terrible" might be a little harsh, but "totally inadequate" wouldn't be. Women's cricket itself is still a redlink, which is just embarrassing. Loganberry (Talk) 22:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Shamed by the redlink, I have created a stub. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the fortnight - Discussion?
Just a question: I know Donald Bradman is the current collaboration of the fortnight, but where exactly is it being discussed? I'm interested to know what improvements are being made, and if there is anything people think the article needs that I might be able to provide, but I can't find any evidence of collaboration on it anywhere: not on the article talk page, not on the Collaboration of the fortnight talk page and not on this talk page. I'm sure I'm just not looking in the right place, but where exactly is it being discussed? I posted a comment on the Don Bradman talk page about a new picture I found, and to my surprise this was the first comment on the page. I would have thought that the talk page would be very busy. Raven4x4x 09:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think if discussion is needed, it should take place on the article's talk page. Stephen Turner 10:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and I wouldn't have thought you could have collaboration without discussion. I'm just wondering where the discussion happens to be. Raven4x4x 05:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Cricket/Collaboration of the fortnight =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That isn't the sort of discussion I'm talking about. That page and the talk page there is all about what should be the COTF, changing the COTF and improving the COTF process etc. I'm looking for discussion about the Bradman article itself, ways it can be improved etc, which is discussion I'm sure should be happening for the COTF. I'm very surprised that such discussion isn't going on the talk page of the article in question (there is still only my message on there, with no replies), and I'm asking where that discussion is. Raven4x4x 09:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the whole COTF concept has never really taken off. The chosen article generally only gets one or two people working on it, and so improves a bit but not spectacularly; and nobody can be bothered to change the COTF every fortnight. Am I being too harsh? Stephen Turner 09:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you're not. I think it is still a good idea, but it requires that we actually have time to invest and perhaps are short of other good ideas to work on. As things stand, there are plenty of small pet projects to work on, so no one really has the spare time to work on the big CoTF. Sam Vimes 10:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Virtual Scoring
Is anyone familiar with the concept described at Virtual Scoring? If not, I'm going to assume it's original research and propose it for deletion. Stephen Turner 10:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I've never heard of it. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * See the discussion in Sam's talkpage : User_talk:Sam_Vimes Tintin 10:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So he heard about it somewhere else, but he doesn't know where, and he doesn't know what its usual name is. It's better than I thought in that it doesn't originate with him, but I'm still leaning towards deletion. Stephen Turner 11:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * IMHO, it would be better to sort it out here before going for an AfD because most of those who should have a say in it are readers of this page. There, most of the people will be deletionists wrt cricket articles.


 * I have a weak keep attitude towards this. Tintin 15:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK then, who else wants to comment? Stephen Turner 15:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ask BlackJack on what virtual scoring really is, since he made the article.DaGizza 22:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Never heard of it, Google brings nothing up, it seems like the author has "invented" this concept himself, and published it on here in the hope that it gains popularity? --PopUpPirate 09:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If so, it's original research and will have to go, but Stephen's comment above implies that he saw it somewhere else, making it acceptable. Having said that, I'm uneasy about the fact that apparently "he doesn't know what its usual name is"; that sounds a bit like putting the description for The Oval under "South London cricket ground". Loganberry (Talk) 13:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm only judging by what BlackJack said on Sam Vimes's user page (link above). At best it's a report of someone else's original research, and possibly filed under the wrong name. Stephen Turner 13:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seems very keen to keep it, so I've listed it on AfD. You can still have your say at Articles_for_deletion/Virtual_Scoring. Stephen Turner 07:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions
I posted a message a while back suggesting that, as a novice, I go through the articles on cricket and jot down anything that isn't clear. Since that time, I've been far too busy actually watching it and have therefore picked up quite a bit, but I've just looked at some pages that explain cricket and tried to spot where articles are a little confusing to beginners or could easily be fleshed out.

I hope the below is useful and can provide food for thought for editors - I'll certainly try and cover some of the below myself. If any of the ideas I've put down have been mooted before and resoundingly rejected, I do apologise! I'd massively appreciate any feedback, be it positive or negative.

Many thanks, -- High (Hopes) [ (+) ] 13:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * First off, the bowling template is excellent and makes navigation much easier.
 * Terms like 'a leg break turns from leg to off' come naturally to the initiated, but force novices to take a minute to picture in their head where leg and off are (it gets worse when the batsman is left-handed!). Would it be possible to produce diagrams to illustrate different deliveries? They might be useful for the following:
 * Off-breaks, leg-breaks, left arm orthodox and the Chinaman
 * The variations (googly, doosra, etc.), especially where the flight of the ball after pitching comes into play (I'm thinking along the lines of Warne's flipper and zooter)
 * For fast bowlers, a side-on or 45deg view of different lengths to help illustrate different deliveries (going from beamer right back to bouncer/short one - the diagram could be appended with text to explain, for example, that the half-volley is easy to play, etc.). If anyone has Simon Hughes's book Jargonbusting, the diagram on p. 48 is what I thought might be useful
 * The diagrams I had in mind would look quite scientific and, coming to think of it, bear a passing resemblance to how HawkEye looks on TV, which could be a problem! Does anyone have a degree in some graphics program or is friendly with anyone at Sunset & Vine/Channel 4?!


 * On a similar note, the articles on different bowling deliveries might also be enhanced with photos of the wrist action involved for each ball (this would be especially useful to help explain how a googly is bowled, and why, therefore, it spins in the opposite direction). Anyone here good at bowling googlies or doosras?! The way I've mentally pictured them would be a series of good, clear photos, preferably against a neutral background, showing the view from behind (and possibly the batsman's too).
 * With all due respect to whoever made the diagram, the drawing on the off spin article doesn't strike me as being very helpful and seems out of place.
 * Bowling strategy (cricket) could be expanded to explain how a bowler might do for a batsmen by cleverly constructing an over of deliveries that lead up to a dismissal. Michael Holding's famous 'best over in the history of cricket' is one example, and I've heard the media talk at length about how clever Flintoff's over to Ponting in the second innings at Edgbaston was. There's also the three-card trick - bouncer; place a deep square leg to suggest another ball that can be hooked; then get them plumb leg before. I'm sure someone here knows more about this than I!
 * The terminology page is superb. Thinking back to terms I heard during the Ashes that aren't listed, 'back of a length' is the only one not mentioned.
 * Captain (cricket) is good, but it would be useful if the section on the toss could be expanded to explain what factors will affect the toss winner's decision to bat or bowl. Of course, a brief reference to Mr Ponting's generous decision to put England in at Edgbaston wouldn't go amiss...
 * Talking of conditions, I couldn't find anything about what conditions are ideal for bowling and which aren't, and why (overcast = good for swingers, etc.). Equally, the media often refer to perfect batting conditions (the adjacent picture is always of a very sunny day) - why is this perfect?
 * The page on batting (cricket) doesn't discuss footwork much, yet this is frequently mentioned as the key to good batting. Might this be expanded?
 * The page on fielding (cricket) could be expanded with respect to how different fielding positions are used to attack or defend against the batsmen. This would be quite a long list, but novices might wonder what circumstances would lead to the use of a mid-on but not a mid-off etc. I certainly still do!
 * The article on the international structure of cricket is useful but only touches on what many seem to wonder about - what or who dictates which teams play each other and when? While the Ashes clearly have a some rhyme and reason (twice every four years), does this exist for other teams? Is there a decree to ensure that two Test teams must play each other at least once in a given amount of time?
 * Lastly, the difference between right-handers and left-handers is clearly crucial (both for batsmen and bowlers), but I can't find anything to explain why. Given that this is an area where shrewd tactics come into play, it would be useful to have something on how to deal with bowlers using different arms and how tactics might differ depending on the batsman's handedness.

The following are personal questions about aspects of cricket I don't yet understand, but if anyone has the answers I can update the relevant articles:
 * I'm sure that during coverage of The Ashes, off- and leg-cutters were explained as being created through movement off the seam, rather than through imparting spin on an axis parallel to the pitch. Which is correct?
 * The article on the Chinaman states that this delivery is less dangerous than left-arm orthodox spin, as it turns into the right-handed batsmen. This makes sense, but Shane Warne has little difficulty in terrorising left-handed batsmen with his leg-breaks. What explains the difference?

Thanks again, -- High (Hopes) [ (+) ] 13:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Insightful suggestions and thoughts to keep us going. Ok, to answer your queries: 1. A cutter is a delivery which spins. A fast version of an offbreak or leg break in reality, though with much less 'turn'. 2) A chinaman is a wrist spin delivery bowled by a left-handed bowler. Shane Warne is right-handed. Warney & Murali are dangerous as they both can turn the ball a looooooong way. We unfortunately don't have any graphic designers on board. :( =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nichalp, thanks for your reply - that explains the off-cutter, thanks! I think I see what you mean about the Chinaman - I didn't word my question very well. Essentially I was confused why a Chinaman (saw Katich bowl them in the Ashes) wouldn't be dangerous to a RHB when a leg-break (I had appreciated that SW is right-handed) is clearly a problem to LHB - but the fact that SW is a lethal turner of the ball explains it. I'm going to have a go at drawing a bowling diagram - it won't be very 'technical', but hopefully it can be worked on by others. -- High (Hopes) [ (+) ] 17:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Warne is also often helped by the rough outside the right-handed batsman's leg stump/left-handed batsman's off stump (created by the right-arm bowlers bowling over the wicket/left-bowlers bowling round the wicket, as they continue down the pitch from their delivery stride). An off spinner rarely has the same level of assistance from wear on the other side of the pitch.  But, with the best will in the world, Simon Katich is not in the same league as a bowler as Shane Warne.  Compare Ashley Giles, who bowls left-arm orthodox spin (essentially leg spin identical to Warne, although left-arm finger spin rather than right-arm wrist spin) - although Giles is a notch or two above Katich, he is still not on the level as Warne. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The rough created by the right arm bowlers does explain a lot - I'll add this to the articles on SLC and LB. A final point, actually - on cricinfo and Shane Warne's page, his bowling style is given as LBG - but he barely used his googly during the Ashes, and it's not as though the googly has ever been his stock ball - is there an explanation for this? --HighHopes (T)&sdot; [ (+)] &sdot;(C)&sdot;(E) 13:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestions, I'm afraid I can't help with many (not good on the technical side of the game) but I'll have a hack at the International structure of cricket and women's cricket fairly soon. Sam Vimes 12:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sam, thanks. I'm in the same position on the technical side - which is why I made the suggestions in the first place. If I may ask - you seem to contribute loads to cricket articles, but if you're not big on the technical side, what has helped you add so much to cricket? Was just seeking some advice so I can contribute in a similar way (i.e. without much of a cricket-playing background). Thanks,-- High (Hopes) [ (+) ] 17:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Remember, you're talking to a person who's had four cricket articles on AfD! ;) Anyway, reading helps - I got Wisden 2003 last year, that helped me loads in understanding how people wrote about cricket, and seeing that Wikipedia had something similar got me into it. Basically, there's a lot you can write based on a scorecard! As for biography contributions, they're really quite easy - I use cricinfo and cricketarchive to get a summary of the careers, and then write based on the stats. It's probably not the best way of doing it, but as it'll often be the case that we're writing about players that we haven't seen, it's an okay method. Cricinfo often has a short profile, too, which helps. Sam Vimes 18:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is what I do for bio articles as well, especially when it comes to players I haven't actually come across (eg Steven Lubbers, a Dutch ODI player). Cricinfo's "related articles" can also be worth reading; as a Worcestershire supporter I already knew that Ben Smith relinquished the captaincy in mid-match last year, but if he'd been playing for another county I might not have done without reading the article. It seems to work reasonably well for the most part, although it can be tricky when a player has a gap in their career and you don't know whether that was because of poor form, injury, personal reasons (eg Thorpe) etc. But of course anyone who does know can improve the article, this being the Wonderful World of Wiki. =:) Loganberry (Talk) 22:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)