Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 13

Featured list candidates/List of World XI ODI cricketers
Just a note to say I've added List of World XI ODI cricketers to WP:FLC, jguk 18:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/West Indian cricket team
After some substantial rewrite, I've renominated West Indian cricket team on WP:FAC. Any comments would be welcome, jguk 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Australian Collaboration of tne fortnight
for WP:Cricket members information,

-- Ian &equiv; talk 14:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

mashhur.com again
I think I was wrong when we previously discussed this. Having seen today's additions to Brian Lara &mdash; links to articles that mentioned Lara only in the context of a review of a whole tour &mdash; I've now decided that they probably are Page Rank harvesting.

The question is what to do about them. I imagine that if someone goes in and just removes them all, we will get into an edit war. I've found that people are very sensitive about their Google Page Rank.

Thoughts? Ideas?

Stephen Turner 09:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Links which point to good articles on Brian Lara – beginning to present are welcome. Others are not, unless they have something different, but important information. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't clear. I've removed the Brian Lara links already. My question was what to do about all the other links to mashhur.com articles. Most prominent Pakistani players have a couple. Stephen Turner 11:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is NK from www.mashhur.com. We understand that there is some problem with links?. First, lets be clear that putting links on wikipedia does not increase pagerank on google, because google knows very well that anyone can put up a link over here. All links put on wikipedia from mashhur.com, at least those that have come from us, were put there because they were relevant to the player, not because there is some hidden agenda to increase pagerank through link harvesting. Please explain to me how Miandad's 1986 six is irrelevant to Javed Miandad, or the Total International Series is irrelevant to either Waqar younis or Wasim Akram? Or how is the world cup 1992 campaign irrelevant to Imran Khan? Not only are these exrtremely relevant and important to the careers of these players and to Pakistan Cricket, but also the information mentioned in the mashhur.com articles is not exactly available all over the web.


 * Regarding the Brian Lara link, you may be correct in removing it because it did not go into detail about Lara during 1993, but it was one of the best periods of Lara's career, without describing which any 'information' on Lara would be incomplete. In any case, I have gone ahead and removed many links from wikipedia to mashhur.com, at least those that did not 'directly' relate to the person 'in detail'. The others I think are all relevant, and in any case some of them were not put on wikipedia by us. Since you are the editors, if you think something is not 'written well', you have all right to go ahead and delete the link. Please note, that in the absence of a link to Mashhur.com, people go ahead and copy the material from our articles and paste them in the text section on wikipedia. NK 11:53, 2 November 2005 (PST)


 * Shoaib Akhtar, Inzamam-ul-Haq Mushtaq Ahmed Waqar Younis Wasim Akram Abdul Qadir Javed Miandad & Dennis Lillee are the articles which have link to mashur.com The articles from the site are Akhtar, Inzy, 1993 series, WC final, 96 QF, 87 SF, WC init, JM/Lillee], Chetan Sharma six Tintin 12:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Northern Transvaal v Natal B 1-4 January 1972
Someone has put it up for deletion. Tintin 13:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories
It appears some robot is going through all the nationality categories and changing them. For example, Category:Australian cricket is being changed to Category:Cricket in Australia. This is leading to all sorts of errors coming in - for example - The Invincibles, which is the name given to the 1948 Australian squad to tour England has been recategorised to Category:Cricket in Australia, whereas, if we are to have "in X" categories, it should be in Category:Cricket in England. Also, surely Cricket:Australian cricket is a better category anyway than Category:Cricket in Australia as it's more useful. After all, The 2005 Ashes can be in Category:Australian cricket, and it would be sensible to categorise it as such, but Category:Cricket in Australia is just wrong (as would be all other reports of overseas tours). Should we try to get whoever wrote this bot to reverse its effects? jguk 04:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. I totally agree - this change is wrong (and I cannot find any reference to it in WP:CFR)  -- Ian &equiv; talk 06:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Here you go. Categories for deletion/Log/2005_October_21. Sam Vimes 07:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am certain that there was good faith intended in the change, but for the reasons Jguk has outlined, it seems innapropriate in at least these examples.  Can we a) live with the change (would mean changing a few articles) or b) request a new CFR to revert or c) request a revert from the bot owner?  I think c) would fail as a vote has been taken and he's simply complying with the consensus as per the vote. -- Ian &equiv; talk 11:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether we can change the CFR decision depends on the number of articles that will become mis-catagorized. I'm happy to change some if they get moved into an inappropriate catagory. Raven4x4x 11:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I particularly did not like the change from English cricket to cricket in England for the Glamorgan connection if nothing else, not forgetting our Scottish friends in LO cricket; and I could write a whole article of reasons from the historical standpoint. Although Glamorgan and Scotland play "English cricket" against invariably English opponents and are happy with that situation, they do not play "in England" unless they are the away team.

I would have thought that where there is a large and active WikiProject in place, these autobots should mind their own business and leave it to us to manage things ourselves. Can we not raise an issue with whoever to suggest this: i.e., that autobots should be programmed to exclude certain projects and categories from their searches where it is known and can be demonstrated that the members themselves are in control and acting within at least general Wiki guidelines? --Jack 11:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

CaribbeanCricket.com
Apparently, CaribbeanCricket.com has all of its content licensed under a Creative Commons-license. Now, I'm not 100 % sure on the legal stuff, but isn't Creative Commons WP-compatible? If so, I think we've just got a massive source of pictures on our hands... Sam Vimes 23:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No. We can't use anything on their site. Two reasons:
 * The site is licenced under cc-by-nd-nc-1.0. Means that it can be used only for non commercial, and no derivatives can be made. All CC licences are not compatible with wikipedia. Compatible licences are:


 * CC-
 * CC-SA-
 * CC-BY-SA-
 * Versions include 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5 (BY = by ie. credit the photographer & SA = share alike ie release the derivatives under the exact same licence)


 * The second reason is that this is a blog type site. Most sites of this nature do release it under -cc- licences, however images are often sourced from copyrighted sites. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Cricketing nicknames page move
I made a request to move the article List of cricketers' nicknames to List of nicknames used in cricket. Please vote at Talk:List of cricketers' nicknames.  Da Gizza  Chat (c) 11:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Moved. -- Ian &equiv; talk 14:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

LG ICC cricket ratings
Is there a website that attempts player career rankings which includes past players? From what I can see the above only produces rankings for current players (although they do mention that past player rankings will be available "over the coming months").

This ranks innings, but not careers. -- Ian &equiv; talk 07:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * had it, but when they swiched to LG ratings, they removed it. Tintin 11:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Found it and answered my own question - at Cricketarchive. -- Ian &equiv; talk 16:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hick is only 53. He was definitely a better first class batsman than many of the people above him. Tintin 16:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that there's also a Test batsman table (in which Hick does not cop a mention) and an Index  -- Ian &equiv; talk 12:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Unplayable
Could someone more knowledgeable on cricket than me please have a quick look at unplayable and see whether they think it's salvageable as an article or should be deleted/moved to Wiktionary. Thanks. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling they ought to start Cricktionary... Not Wikipedia-suitable content -- perhaps redirect to List of cricket terms?  [[Sam Korn ]] 12:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Unsalvageable. I've redirected it per Sam Korn's suggestion. Stephen Turner 12:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD again
Articles for deletion/Cricket matches articles Stephen Turner 12:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the big discussion on all the 500+ articles in Category:2005 English cricket season matches. It should finally resolve this issue one way or the other. So comments are especially important this time. Stephen Turner 13:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should issue an apology for writing the things in the first place... Sam Vimes 15:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't apologise for doing good work that benefits Wikipedia (even if people don't appreciate it). Guettarda 15:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Likewise. Sam, they're notable articles in their own right and once merged, moreso. Is there anything we, as a group can do to assist in merging these articles (as the vote is likely to be)? I am happy to assist in any way. This will be a big task and many hands make light work as they say, but it will need some co-ordination. -- Ian &equiv; talk 15:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I think the merging will be simple enough - it's just a matter of turning the transclusion code into  - which can easily be done in Notepad and I've already started doing that on user subpages (removing the AfD templates takes a bit more time, but I've got a java program which does that in the blink of an eye). So really...I think it's fine. For the moment, anyway - though I wouldn't mind anyone having a look on User:Sam Vimes/Sandbox12 and tell me whether that's preferable to what's currently in Lancashire County Cricket Club in 2005 (well, without the nasty templates) Sam Vimes 16:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I prefer the sandbox version -- Ian &equiv; talk 16:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not surprisingly. I suppose that's what I'll aim for, but it takes a while to do that - and you kinda have to know the subject to do it that way. :) Sam Vimes 16:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks like you're not going to get a chance. User:AllyUnion has taken it upon himself to merge them programmatically without waiting for the end of the AfD discussion. Stephen Turner 11:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Argh! Means I'll have to reconstruct the tournament pages from scratch, since all they consist of now is a bunch of redirects. Bummer. :( Sam Vimes 14:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've asked AllyUnion to mend them. Stephen Turner 14:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

An FLRC now
Featured list removal candidates/Indian national cricket captains Tintin 20:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Style guidelines
Please be aware of several style guidelines: Naming_conventions

Also, I would recommend that such titles as 1888/9 South African cricket season be renamed into a single date: 1888 South African cricket season, although it would likely be more appropriate to formally name the article like this: South African cricket season (1888).

--AllyUnion (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * From, Note that only the English, European, and North American (excluding the West Indies) seasons are referred to by a single year, such as "1997". All other seasons are referred to by the overlapping years which they span, such as "1997-98".


 * To call the 1888/9 South African cricket season the 1888 South African cricket season or anything else that drops the second year of the season would be just plain wrong. There's two hundred 150 years of precedent that says so.  I accept the argument for moving from "/" to "-", which has been used somewhat inconsistently in articles in the past according to users' preference.  I have in recent times stopped using /'s for this reason and will amend the style guide on the project page here to reflect the convention reference you've kindly pointed out.


 * Note also Naming conventions (years in titles) where your suggested South African cricket season (1888) is specifically non-preferred. I also note that the MOS recommends that for a closed range, use an en dash (–) rather than a simple keyboard dash. -- Ian &equiv; talk 12:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The naming conventions actually call for such an article to be named: South African cricket season, 1888-9; An en dash can not be typed into the search box easily either. There is no established naming convention for titles that span a date range, however it is asked that / are to be avoided. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and they also call for the avoidance of linking in sections... but I can not find the reference for that at the moment. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I know this sounds odd (perhaps only cricket could have come up with it) but 1888-89 actually is the name of the season, not just the dates it happened. Could you provide a MoS source for that claim?   [[Sam Korn ]] 00:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggested that one year would be appropriate, as it seems, judging from the template box at the bottom, that it's understood that a year like 1888 spans 1888 and 1889. It's not any MoS source, but it's rather a common sense suggestion.  Furthermore, the years in titles is not an established convention, which is why I didn't link to it.  However, the issue with the title above has the same issue with an established convention of avoiding the slash character. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Technically, by all accounts, the article should be named: 1888-89 South African cricket season... if that's the official name. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So, which is going to be: 1888–89 South African cricket season, 1888–9 South African cricket season, South African cricket season, 1888–89, or South African cricket season, 1888–9? --AllyUnion (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I prefer the first one. Without an ndash, since they can't be typed into the search box (Yes, I know we can always make redirects, but it's slightly annoying. Although, admittedly, the sources I can get my hands on at the moment say: South African cricket season, 1888-89 (cricinfo), Cricket in South Africa in 1888/89 (cricketarchive), Cricket in South Africa, 1888-89 (Wisden). So no cricket season seems to put the year in front - but most sporting seasons on WP do (1972 World Series, 1991 NHL season, 1968 American League Championship Series, 2004-5 Heineken Cup, 2002-03 in English football - with a few notable exceptions, such as the football World Cups, and they don't use commas anyway. So yeah, first one. Sam Vimes 18:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, a WP-wide convention has been proposed at Naming conventions (numbers and dates) Sam Vimes 18:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Cricket no pic.png
I'm fed up with removing copyright pictures from players' infoboxes. I'm also fed up with seeing the silhouette head. So I had a suggestion &mdash; how about replacing the head with a 1 pixel high, 154 pixel wide blank image? Then the infoboxes without photos would just have a small space. And newbies wouldn't be encouraged to find photos on the web and upload them, only for me to remove them again.

Any comments? I didn't want to be bold on this occasion without asking other people first.

Stephen Turner 15:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The downside of doing that is that it no longer actively encourages people to find and upload taggable images. But in balance I agree with the idea as it is just making work for us (you :–)) -- Ian &equiv; talk 00:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I used to think that was a downside, but now I'm inclined to think it's an upside. Stephen Turner 09:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I've switched to a blank image. Let's see how it goes. We may just get more images in the body of the text, but it's worth a try. Stephen Turner 09:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Msg to those who create the stubs
Please make the articles atleast three or four lines long. Someone has put up Thelston Payne for deletion. There a few more articles which have the same format. Saving Payne wouldn't be a problem but it would be better if we could avoid this additional heaedache. Tintin 14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's hopeless. There's a dynamic IP who makes these substubs, and he appears not to read things on talk pages - DaGizza has invited him twice, Stephen once, I'm sure I've done at times, but he's not replied. He is also an occasional vandal (see and User_talk:Sam_Vimes). The best we can do, annoying as it may be, is to clean up after him, I'm afraid. Sam Vimes 15:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point. I've created a few stubs myself and I was aware when I started that short stubs would be deleted, so the thing to do is waffle a bit if you have to and use at least two paragraphs. Don't worry about the waffle: the point of a stub is to edit and enlarge it later. --Jack 11:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it worth creating a new template to highlight the articles of one or two lines, so that we know what to expand quickly? Not that the author would add them &mdash; he doesn't even use  &mdash; but I could probably write a program to find appropriate articles to add them to. Stephen Turner 10:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've now discovered that itself is out of favour &mdash; in fact it's been deleted &mdash; which perhaps makes my suggestion less appealing. I still think it might be useful within our restricted domain though. Stephen Turner 10:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it should be possible if we put it on talk pages - so that it's easy to clean up, because I suppose it'll just be for internal use? Sam Vimes 10:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

IRC
I don't know if anyone's interested, but I just registered the Freenode IRC channel #wikipedia-en-cricket for this WikiProject. I don't know how many cricket people use IRC apart from myself, Jon and Nichalp, but it might be useful, if only for idling purposes. If you want to be an op (basically, anyone who plays nicely can be one) just drop me a line. Perhaps, if this is of interest to anyone, it can be put on the main WP:CRICKET page? [[Sam Korn ]] 22:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You forgot user:Ngb. Fuddlemark may also want to join. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

English Season Categories
We need to agree on which categories the English season summaries should be allocated to.

At present we have several seasons from 1890 to about 1900 sitting in the general category:English cricket while 2005 seems to have a category all to itself.

I have opened category:English cricket in the 18th Century to cover the period 1697 to 1815 (there are sound reasons of historical continuity not to go from 1701 to 1800). I have just started a sister category:English cricket in the 19th Century and it makes sense (historical continuity again) to have this cover the period 1816 - 1889 inclusive.

1889 was the year in which the County Championship was formally instituted and it began in 1890. We already have several season articles starting from 1890 as per above but nothing before 1890 unless you go right back to 1772 (and earlier).

I propose three additional categories: category:English cricket 1890 - 1968; category:English cricket 1969 - 2000; and category:English cricket in the 21st Century starting with the 2001 season.

The first covers the heyday of County Championship cricket from its formal institution until its decline following the shift towards LOI competitions (for obvious commercial reasons). From 1969, the LOI competitions have predominated in domestic cricket and we are effectively dealing with a different era not just because there have been a reduced number of first-class games but also because of the different mindset and culture of the game since LOI took over. Given the volume of the 2005 data, it makes sense to have a cutoff after 2000 and start a new century from 2001.

I'd like to hear what people think about this before I do anything with the proposed categories. Consensus will prevail so if you have any definite views, please make sure you air them.

Thanks in advance for your interest. --Jack 13:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think whether this is sensible or not depends on what sort of articles will go in different categories. I imagine Category:English cricket seasons would be a suitable place to store all articles about particular seasons. More general info could go in the sort of categories Jack suggests, although I'm not persuaded about the cut-off dates he uses. But then again, I suppose any cut-off dates will be kind of arbitrary, jguk 15:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And if there's enough articles about a particular season, it could be made a subcategory of English cricket seasons (with the main article remaining in both?). I would, however, prefer names like category:English cricket from 1890 to 1968 - this prevents people having to add the dash, which I understand is a bit controversial around WP (I think ndashes like – are preferred, but that would mean a lot of typing and confusion). Sam Vimes 15:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm open to all ideas about cutoff dates and I agree with Sam re the dash which I gather is frowned upon in wider WP circles. Actually, I quite like the suggestion of Category:English cricket seasons providing it is restricted to season summaries.  --Jack 17:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

1890 is clearly a sensible date for the start of the first category. You could make an argument for ending it in 1962 rather than 1968, since 1963 saw both the start of the Gillette Cup and the first season without a distinction being made between amateur and professional cricketers. I don't have any rooted objection to 1968, though. Loganberry (Talk) 13:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

****** topic resurrected ******

I've decided to resurrect this topic which has been in the archives for the last month. I recalled the discussion after noticing the autobot changes from "English cricket" to "cricket in England" and suchlike.

I think to be going with that we should start a sub-category of Category:History of cricket called Category:English cricket seasons with similar ones for each of the other countries. I also think that I (as the originator of them) should rename the 18th & 19th century cats as Category:English cricket to 1815 and Category:English cricket from 1816 to 1889.

I'd also like to see some more suggestions re the "Golden Age" seasons as these currently exist in Category:Cricket in England which is outside the historical categories where I think they should reside. The same applies to the articles about the 2004 and 2005 seasons. My own view is that we should have (for England) Category:English cricket from 1890 to 1918, Category:English cricket from 1919 to 1945 and then one or perhaps two categories for the period 1946 to 2000 with a further category called Category:English cricket from 2001. We should create similar categories for each country plus one or more for world cricket as a whole which would replace the current Category:Years in cricket.

Please let me know what you think about this before the end of November or I will go ahead. --Jack 12:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1999 seems a little bit more logical than 2000, even though the nitpickers would say that the 20th century didn't end until 2001. Everyone celebrated it in 1999 anyway, so I think that's the best split. Agreed with the rest, though (although perhaps 1944 instead of 1945, since Victory Tests would belong in a category 1945 English cricket season but is definitely a post-war occurrence). Sam Vimes 12:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and just to check that I'm understanding you right - Category:English cricket seasons would go under a new History of cricket category in addition to the Cricket in England category? Sam Vimes 12:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. All of this is to go into category:History of cricket which is itself a main subcategory of category:Cricket --Jack 10:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)