Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 28

Some project statistics
From WikiProject Cricket/Articles, which shows just how big the cricket project really is: &mdash;Moondyne 08:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How did the cats and articles spike so much? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently the cats aren't tagged automatically . Every now and again someone needs to ask Ingrid to get WatchlistBot to do that. &mdash;Moondyne 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ratings
Please could a WikiProject member review the project rating of West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 on its talk page. It's currently "B class" and "Mid Importance". Thanks --Dweller 10:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it passes FAC, it would be FA class which would supersede the B class. I would stick by the mid importance rating. As a series without a major cricketing upheaval, (a la Bodyline) it wouldn't be rated as Top. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But there is the option of High in between Mid and Top. Like so many articles, it seems to me to be clearly neither Top nor Low, but it's hard to decide whether Mid or High is more appropriate. Perhaps it should stay as Mid, since if it was High then a very large number of other articles on Test series would logically have to be High as well. JH (talk page) 10:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mid. It's only one Test series. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that some articles are not being tagged correctly. Herbert Sutcliffe was tagged "A"-class, but had no references and also seemed to include many weasel and peacock words. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

South Africa overtake Australia in ODI
I've changed the South African cricket team (infobox and one reference in article) and Australian cricket team (infobox only) articles to reflect the change in positions in the rankings. Dunno if there are any other articles that need to be changed Nil Einne 06:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I've changed the odi rankings. This is good for cricket in lot of ways...--Thugchildz


 * Not for Australian cricket :) GizzaChat  &#169; 07:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well for its good for cricket in general, and for australia to some extent, at least now they have a challenge. It was getting boring with their domination.--Thugchildz

I agree. Their complacency after the decimation of England in the Ashes proved their dominance, so it's good to see them getting smashed a bit. к1иg  f1$н   £я5ω1fт  10:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Collingwood FA drive
Hey, just wanted to say that me and Dweller are doing our level best to get Colly up to FA in next-to-no-time. It relies on all of us to achieve this. It's already undergone a peer review and has matured significantly in the international section of his bio. It really needs some help in the domestic part of his career. Any takers? I'd like to think that with 80+ correctly footnoted citations, this article could become the template for future good cricket biographies so please, help where you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs)
 * Oh yeah, good point, I should have signed that! The Rambling Man 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

BlackJack's website
I understand that, now that he has left us, BlackJack is doing some work on his own website. Does anyone know where I might find it? I would be really interested to see what his work looks like when it is done his way, free of Wikipedian restrictions. Robertson-Glasgow 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot
I plan to put up the bot template to allow for automated archivals (old comments that have no response for a week) by Werdnabot. Does anyone have any issues with this? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  11:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Activated it! =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam Gilchrist FA drive
Okay, this may sound like a broken record, but I'm now pushing Gilly as a potential FA in accordance with the current drive to push articles hard before the World Cup. I've tagged all the non-referenced claims with so, if you're interested, let's get going and make this article work for GA/FA. The Rambling Man 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * List it on PR, I'll review there. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'll do some work on it before putting it up for Peer review. There are some obvious problems with the article which don't need to be pointed out to me at the moment...!  The Rambling Man 15:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Test centuries by county
Can anyone point me to a resource that would list centuries scored by players from a particular county? (It's Durham I'm most interested in) --Dweller 11:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wisden, though not the online edition. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 15:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone has access to a recent edition and can cite it for the two remaining "citation needed"s on Paul Collingwood that would be hugely helpful - it's all I'm waiting for before nominating it for FA - it's pointless doing so until that's done. --Dweller 15:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Wisden will help with the one remaining "citation needed" (at least I could only spot one). I think he's actually the first Durham player to score a century for England, never mind a double century. (Botham did it of course, but ionly before he joined Durham.) Ideally what you need is someone who is a member of Durham CCC, as I suspect that their Yearbook would have the necessary data. Or the information could probably be extracted from Cricinfo and/or CricketArchive, but it might mean referring to two or more tables. JH (talk page) 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The latest (2006) edition won't help unfortunately; the last England tour covered by it was the Pakistan 2005/06 one. The earliest reference you need won't appear until Wisden 2007 is released on March 26. AMBerry 18:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we need an online source. Anyone? --Dweller 19:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh. I've added a reference now. It's not completely explicit, but it can be checked by anyone who takes more than ten minutes to do so, and that should be more than enough.


 * I've also rephrased it a bit, since Sherwin Campbell could be constructed as hitting a Test century as a Durham player. Sam Vimes | Address me 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM Cricket (disambiguation) -> Cricket
There's an RM discussion posted at Talk:Cricket_%28disambiguation%29 to move the bad page to cricket. I dropped a note saying that the RM notice should also be at cricket, but I thought I'd mention it here in the meantime. Guettarda 18:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here we go again! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh FA Drive
I think this is the closest of the biographies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * List it on PR, I'll comment there. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, still have to pad out another year, but since there is already a big mood for FAs, I have added Peer review/Irfan Pathan/archive1 and Peer review/Dinesh Karthik/archive1 which are already GAs, but have no photos. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand cricket team
I have just stumbled upon this article, and it is just list after list after list. I have very little knowledge of the Kiwi's, and nothing before around the '99 WC, so anyone who could add some prose would be hugely appreciated. Cheers, к1иg   f1$н   £я5ω1fт  18:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles
Raul654 has just added Cricket World Cup and West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 to WP:FA. Well done everyone.

I hope we can keep this going until the World Cup starts - it would be nice to have a featured-quality article for a player from each of the Test-playing nations. I will hold off on copyediting until the article-building is done - let me know when you would like me to read them. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good stuff, well done all those involved.
 * I have requested that Cricket World Cup appear on the main page on either 13 March or 28 April to coincide with the start or final of this year's tournament. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well this is probably not possible and have never been done but just incase, if we tried, could we get the 2007 Cricket World Cup to FA and the main page may be like on the final day of the tournament? We can like add more refs and bit more info like the lead up and I know it would change day to day but it would just be just the scorecards that would change the article wouldn't really change. Just a thought--Thugchildz


 * I think you will have serious trouble convinving the reviewers that the article is stable when it is documenting a current event. Would be nice in theory, but not going to happen in practice. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We are having a big FA drive right now for the world cup and it's good and all but what happens after the world cup...Just look and realize that a bit of collaboration can get a article to FA quicker than we think...So here's the thing, even after the world cup can we keep it up and keep cricket on the main page consistently? How about atleast one cricket article on the main page per month. The project could choose a certain article and then try to get that on the main page the following month or even the same month. So can we keep the drive alive even after the world cup?--Thugchildz

With Paul Collingwood pretty much done, the current collaborative project is Adam Gilchrist, with Harbhajan Singh next in the queue. We've been using Blnguyen's advert to guide us to articles with photos - a decent uncopyrighted photo is a prerequisite for the collaboration. --Dweller 09:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team in England in 1980
I just had to undelete this (one of User:BlackJack's stubby tour articles, which was speedily deleted for having no content). I took the opportunity to expand it too.

If anyone has the time, it would be helpful to add a brief summary of the ODIs and Tests on other tours - shorter than this! - before others are speedily deleted (they can always be undeleted, of course). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fan though I am of Jack's huge contribution, the stubs are in these instances not much better than starting from scratch, since they prescribe headings that we wouldn't necessarily follow and cite uniform references that I, for one, don't have access to. So if they get deleted, so be it. I had a go a while back at West Indian cricket team in England in 1973 and will do more: can I suggest 1966 might be a priority for the West Indian tours of England since there are parallels with the tour of 1988 whose article will hopefully be very prominent soon (and it's nice to have all the cross-refs in FAs up to a reasonable standard). Johnlp 18:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - I think they are not so devoid of content as to require deletion, but they could easily be made better. I have had a stab at West Indian cricket team in England in 1984, but both need more colour and context. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

cricket
The article has only like 2 in line refs, the baseball article losts its FA because of refs i think. Can the project please add some inline refs to the article fast before it is question for review?--Thugchildz


 * It has been featured for over 2 years now - since 3 September 2004 - so it probably due a review/rewrite anyway. Nichalp did the work last time on a subpage.  Perhaps we should set up a new subpage and revise it again?  (and, User:Thugchildz, please can you use four tildes to add your signature, so it adds a time and date too, otherwise it is difficult to work out whether you added your comments today, yesterday, last week or last year.  Thanks.) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article looks jaded. It definately needs to be spruced up to mordern day FA standards before the world cup as it will get global attention. The problem is, how do we add inline refs to mostly every other sentence which is the prosification of the laws of cricket? Plus the content needs to be summarised, and graphics converted to svg. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to be rewritten but bit of copyediting and adding more refs or at least to the sentences that do not talk about the laws of cricket. And in the laws of cricket we need to add a ref that says what section of the laws it is in. This should be the main priority for the collaborations before the world cup, because like nick said it will get most gobal attention now.--Thugchildz 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Judging by some of the contents of Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, the best way to make the many references to the Laws of Cricket will be using Havard notations:
 * The cricket pitch is 22 yards long (MCC, 2007: Section X.x).
 * And then at the bottom, a full citation is needed. See WP:CITE for more details. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam Gilchrist
The peer review is now open, so please, everyone feel free to have a look at where the article is right now and make suggestions, find sources for the citations with reference and improve the flow of the article. Thanks, in advance. The Rambling Man 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Style question
An editor has changed "Right-handed batsman" to "Right hand bat" in the Infobox in the Graeme Hick article, and I can't find a consensus as to what we should use. I've been using the former style in the articles I've written, but if this is out of step with consensus then I'll change. Loganberry (Talk) 02:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * CI uses "bat" and CA uses "batsman". I wonder whether CI does this to avoid being called sexist. (CA uses "batsman" for everyone). On a related issue, what should we use to describe a woman-cricketer - batsman, batswoman or batsperson ? My personal preference is "batsman" but as has happened before, some people may not like it. (What do you call a tail-ender who is sent in early ? Nightwatchwoman ?!) Tintin (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I've heard on a few occasions women commentators say that batsman is what should be used as they find batswoman or batsperson to be unweildy. I couldn't point you towards a definitive reference though. A search on dictionary.com reveals that batswoman and batsperson do not seem to be in any English language dictionary, and more than one has a gender-neutral definition for batsman. As for the Right-handed batsman/Right hand bat, the former is best for me. After all Graeme Hick can certainly not be described as a bat! Andrew nixon 08:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I've heard female players say that they use "batsman" too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that although it was an anon editor who made the change to the Hick article, the same thing has been done in a lot of cricket bios by Speedboy Salesman. I've left a note on his Talk page mentioning this discussion, and hopefully he'll come here and explain why he's done this. Loganberry (Talk) 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's only a matter of time before a term like "batter" becomes widespread. --BlackJack | talk page 21:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't bet on it. I remember a couple of years ago someone writing a very angry letter to Wisden Cricket Monthly when they referred to someone as a batter. According to him batter should be used only when talking about baseball, never when talking about cricket. Andrew nixon 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the terms should stay the same. it should be a style rule that the terms should stay the same and be consistent. if you look at the icc headline today it says Rebecca Rolls becomes 12th batsman to complete 2,000 ODI runs. It doesn't say batswomen or bat/bats etc and in cricinfo it says player of the match not - women of the match or man of the match. So it should be a rule to not change the terms and be consistent through out- for mens' and womens'.--Thugchildz 04:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It would have been better if you started a new section and linked it to the archive rather than pulling it out. GizzaChat  &#169; 04:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 Cricket World Cup Umpires
Is this necessary? It's just the elite list. I imagine it could be deleted and a comment made on the main article saying "matches were refereed by the elite umpires/referees" etc. (better worded, obviously). HornetMike 15:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it isn't neccessary. The names of all umpires used will doubtless appear in the CWC article. And Darrell Hair is incredibly unlikely to umpire in the tournament, contrary to the article. AMBerry 18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then nominate it for deletion - it's a non-article. The Rambling Man 18:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well before the page gets deleted can someone take the template from it and create the ICC International umpire panel, ICC Associates and Affiliates umpire panel and the ICC Elite referee panel articles/page.
 * I've taken a copy of the Elite referee table and created ICC Elite referee panel, it stands as a stub for now before I get the chance to expand upon it. AMBerry 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to update everyone on the matter, the result of the discussion here was no consensus, but there was favourable responses for a merge. Now, I daren't merge the article into 2007 Cricket World Cup just in case I mess it all up, so could someone find an appropriate place to place the section? AMBerry (talk | contribs) 09:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Collabaration Proposition
Hi. Just to say I have noticed that the Football wikiproject and the Rugby Union project both run quite succesful versions of WP:AID (see WP:FAID and WikiProject Rugby union/Collaboration of the fortnight) for their relevant sporting articles. With so many cricket articles that could be massively improved, and the World Cup FA appeal only being temporary, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to set up a permanent cricket AID following the world cup drive? Then, everything non-international and anything not done during the current drive could be finished off whenever. If anyone has any thoughts to this idea, and would like to rate or slate it, please say so here. Cheers! к1иg  f1$н   £я5ω1fт  17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll buy into that. It's already underway in this current pre-WC drive as you say, but it would be a shame not to keep that enthusiasm going...! The Rambling Man 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We used to have one &mdash; WikiProject Cricket/Collaboration of the fortnight &mdash; but it very quickly died owing to lack of interest. That's not to say it couldn't be started up again, of course; it would be great to do so if the enthusiasm is there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps fortnightly is optimistic? Cricket article drive of the month?  The Rambling Man 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn you, edit conflict! Well, I think that we can see from the great work that has gone into Paul Collingwood, Adam Gilchrist and Harbhajan Singh that a Collab would be a quick, effective way of improvement, and as long as it is promoted it should be OK. Hopefully the world cup will provide extra "revenue" as it were for this project, so the lack of interest may be quelled come April. I also agree that a monthly one would be more suitable, and then increased to fortnight or weekly if there is a decent amount of interest. Cheers! к1иg  f1$н   £я5ω1fт  18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. Regarding keeping people interested - it would probably be best to do lots of current players in the collaboration. Then editors know the subject, know where to get information etc. HornetMike 18:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's kick it off then, start sign-ups today! The Rambling Man 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea - I was thinking of proposing it myself! I've created WP:CCOTM, or WikiProject Cricket/Cricket Collaboration of the Month to give it it's full name. Hope I'm not jumping the gun too much! Anyway, I've just stuck the World Cup banner there for now, but interested parties may as well start work on the page. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I was talking about in above(Wikipedia:Featured articles section). We have to try and keep the drive going even after the world cup and try to get cricket articles on the main page at least once a month. Anyways we should start with the base article(cricket). It needs to go under some renovation to meet current FA standards or it will lose FA!--Thugchildz 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You can nominate it for the collaboration on the new page, WP:CCOTM. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work guys, hopefully now cricket articles will be improved to the quality standard they deserve. Cheers! к1иg---  f1$н---   £я5ω1fт  13:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've joined. I have to say that the idea of doing cricket before Harbhajan Singh goes against the idea behind the drive on Collingwood, Gilchrist and Singh. If we wait a month before starting Harb, the world cup will be finished. --Dweller 09:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well cricket is the main/base article (of this project even) and it is will have most attention during the world cup. We should keep the base article up to the standards before doing anything else, plus it shouldn't take much time, if we get at it can be done in 3-4 days but we need to get at it; it just needs to be ref'ed and may be little bit of copyediting to make it fit current FA standards.--Thugchildz 09:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It does seem that User:Thugchildz is the only editor really gunning for doing cricket next, which doesn't make it much of a collaboration! Personally, I'm ambivalent, but I was aware that Singh was 'next in line', so to speak. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is harbhajan since he was next in line, but can we get started on it then?--Thugchildz 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. I've added my vote for cricket. --Dweller 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Harbhajan is on track. I have done all the chronological stuff up until the end of 2005, and he didn't play that much in 2006 - he was injured for one ODI series, and dropped for 1.5 Test series. So there are 7 Tests and 30 ODIs that need proper coverage. And then padding out with some pundit opinions on him generally and some of the notable performances, and we are ready. It's closer than Gilchrist I would say, in terms of the chronologicla description, and I should probably help there more strongly as I'm from Asutralia and probably remember a bit more without having to read up the old match reports in detail (hopefully). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1998 Commonwealth Games squad templates
HarryHall86 has started on the Australia template. Since these matches were not even accredited ODIs, I do not think it should be documented in such a prominent banner-like style. IIRC England boycotted, WI are separate islands, and Indian and Pakistan sent very weak teams, as their main team were competing against one another in the Sahara Cup, which was accredited. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy remove just like the other squad templates... And of course, politely notify HarryHal. GizzaChat  &#169; 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ugh. That's another problem with these templates. They multiply like rabbits.
 * Did we ever reach consensus on the World Cup squad templates? My feeling is that almost everyone wanted to delete them, but perhaps not everyone. I could try and find time to get CricketBot to remove them and replace them with categories if necessary. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can someone start a discussion on 'templates'? I think we can arrives at standard reasons for creation of templates - (a) WC squad (b)major milestones (eg: 10000+ Runs in ODIs/Tests). -- Kalyan 1910 27 February 2007 (IST)

Peer review/Harbhajan Singh/archive1
There we are. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists
Per the to-do page:
 * In the early days of WP:CRIC a large number of "list" articles were created with the intention of capturing all articles covering a particular topic. Since the introduction of categories and with the increasing number of articles, these lists have tended to lose their original purpose and have become more difficult to maintain.  It has been suggested that some of these lists should become sub-pages of the project and others should be deleted altogether.  See Category:Cricket lists for such lists.

IMO, this has been dealt with and the remaining lists are legitimate articles. Does anyone see any lists still there which are superfluous? &mdash;Moondyne 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the remaining lists are all acceptable. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 08:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Maninder Singh indexing again
Yuvraj Singh, Harbhajan Singh,.......... The latest target on Gene Nygaard's ideological indexing battle. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC) .....Amar Singh (cricketer), Wazir Ali, Yajurvindra Singh, Lall Singh, Sarandeep Singh, Rajinder Pal, Gul Mohammad...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)