Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 40

Infobox Cricket Ground
Shouldn't this have a field for the names of a ground's ends? That seems likely to be of more general interest than the (extant) field for stand names. Loganberry (Talk) 00:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, this should be included as I for one often wonder of the name for ground ends. I see that it has even been attempted to be added on pages such as County Ground, Derby, unsuccessfully of course! Schumi555 09:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tournament, Tournament Series and General Series Infoboxes
There are currently quite a few different types of cricket series templates that are in use around Wikipedia. For instance see: Although the need to rationalise the template styles in not urgent, it is surely something that should be done in the future to make pages more appealing and for consistency sake, both of which I find rather important. In this regard I propose the following two templates to start off. They are heavily based on a former version of mine of the current two templates used on the first two pages listed above: It could even be suggested that these two templates could be merged but perhaps to make things easier with the subtle field variable differences they should be left apart. I suggest that the top bars are colour coded according to whether the Wikipedia page is describing a tournment in general or a specific tournament. Perhaps a similar-styled template could be designed to be used for pages similar to the bottom two pages I listed, although we may choose to leave things as they are now. What are everyone's thoughts on the proposal? mdmanser 12:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Cricket World Cup
 * 2) 2007 Cricket World Cup
 * 3) 2005 Ashes series
 * 4) Sri Lankan cricket team in Bangladesh in 2005-06
 * 1) User:Mdmanser/Sandbox3
 * 2) User:Mdmanser/Sandbox4

Robbie Williams
Just to let everyone know that he made his county debut today, so I've celebrated by creating an article. No, not that Robbie Williams! this one.

I can imagine the headlines success and failure may bring him... "SWING GETS MIDDLESEX WINNING" "LET ME ENTERTAIN YOU!" / "TAKE THAT!" "MIDDLESEX NEED INTENSIVE CARE" or even some compilations, "WILLIAMS ESCAPOLOGY AFTER MIDDX DO SOMETHIN STUPID" --Dweller 10:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So thats William Shakespeare, Julius Ceasar, Mohammed Ali and now Robbie Williams who have all had namesakes play county cricket. That's going to make a good trivia question some day. Andrew nixon 12:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't forget Yasir Arafat, who's currently part of the Pakistan national team. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 12:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done Robbie. 5-112 in his first innings in county cricket. Not bad for a "fat dancer from Take That". --Dweller 10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cricket
Blackjack's actions at Citizendium remind me that eventually, probably soon, someone will bring Cricket to FAR and it will fail. The article is beautiful, pretty accurate, well-written... and largely unsourced. If ever there were a project we should work on collaboratively, it's making this article worthy of its Featured star.

I propose - we leave all images, structure and insignificant copy issues and concentrate on adding cn tags where cites are needed and then replace them with references, or delete the unreferencable material.

Who's willing to help? --Dweller 10:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

From TRM's talk page:
 * Just wondering ... would it be better to make a copy of the page and do it quietly rather than add a lot of tags in a hig profile page ? Tintin 10:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. If others wish to cooperate, we'll work on it in user space and move it across when done. --Dweller 11:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * At first glance, 36 citations didn't seem too bad but then I realised 30 or so of them were in one paragraph. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 12:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm up for it. mdmanser 13:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sign here please:
 * 1) Dweller 11:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) The Rambling Man on tour 12:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Tintin 12:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) mdmanser 13:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Okay, I'll chip in where I can. Loganberry (Talk) 14:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Me, too. Robertson-Glasgow 22:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kicking it off
Thanks guys. I now need to look into how to copy the content and history to my userspace. Watch *this* space. --Dweller 10:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly, Tintin's clever idea cannot currently be done (see Village_pump_%28technical%29). So I'm kicking off now at the article. Cheers. --Dweller 10:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bengal Governor's XI v Maharaja of Cooch-Behar's XI, Calcutta, 1917-18
This may be a long shot, but while writing Maurice Foster (English cricketer) a couple of questions occurred to me, and it may just be that someone knows the answer. Firstly, the CricketArchive scorecard mentions that the game was played in support of the "Our Day" Fund. What was this? Given the date, some sort of wartime connection seems likely, but that's a guess. And secondly, how many first-class games have there been when two bowlers have bowled unchanged throughout three (or four) innings? Loganberry (Talk) 02:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this, it was an annual Red Cross and St John's Ambulance fundraising event run throughout the British Empire during (after?) the First World War. See this poster from 1915.  See also this newsletter from 1917.  It seems to have later become the Red Cross flag day (then week, now Red Cross Appeal Week - see British Red Cross).


 * The second question belongs at WP:CRIQ! -- !! ?? 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer to the second part is... none (aside from this one, of course). Johnlp 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you got a source for that second part, please? It would be nice to mention in the article if so, as it's not obvious from the scorecard. Loganberry (Talk) 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's none for four innings and I'll need to check again about three, but I'm pretty confident (though at work, so don't have sources to hand). The certainty about four innings is that all instances of two bowlers bowling unchanged through a match are in a Wisden Book of Cricket Records edited by B Frindall that I have from about 1980. Will try to check the rest over the weekend. Johnlp 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies. Here is a three-innings (actually three and a bit) match with unchanged bowlers. I'll look further tomorrow to see if there are more. Johnlp 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:BlackJack
I happened to be over at Citizendium, where I noticed that he has just joined and created an article on cricket (sport) only yesterday. I hope he is not gone forever. -- !! ?? 10:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, Argentina teh country doesn't even have an articel over there.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 00:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He's alone at CZ. The only thing going for him is no vandalism but otherwise, the area of cricket is going to grow quite slowly with only one editor. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 10:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect it won't grow all that slowly if that one editor is Jack. :-) Johnlp 10:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * CZ always has the option of copy-pasting stuff from Wikipedia. Tintin 10:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, well Jack lacks a cricket community and friends there, which may bore him after a while. Soon enough, if nobody responds to his talk page posts in months or so, I think he will start to feel it. Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 10:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't do other than wish him well at Citizendium. I'm gutted he's gone. My favourite only Belligerent Gnome. --Dweller 11:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the major advantage of Citizendium is not the absence of vandals but of trolls. WP has the ethic of "anyone can edit" which admits vandals who are easily recognised but it leaves trolls with an open field.  CZ's ethic is "anyone can apply" but when you have to prove your credibility and write under your own name, being a troll is not so easy.  A lesson not just for WP but for the internet as a whole.
 * And by the way, I really do wonder if our cricket article should be named cricket (sport) too? What exactly do we gain by saying we are THE cricket while the insect is just something that annoys us at night on our holidays in the Med?  I think BlackJack has hit the nail on the head there.  Plus his introduction to cricket, which owes nothing at all to the WP article, is developing into something really worth reading.  I see also that he is going to create an article called "Glossary of cricket terms": what will he achieve with that, I wonder?  --Fiddlers Three 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not just in the Med; I've noticed crickets starting to turn up around here (Worcestershire) on summer nights in the last two or three years. As for the possible disambiguation, that debate comes around every so often, and I doubt we've seen the last of it. One of the reasons I tend to write "X was a cricketer" rather than "X was a cricket-er" (without the hyphen) is that it won't need changing if it ever does go to cricket (sport)! Loganberry (Talk) 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A few questions...
What constitutes an international tour? Recently, I've been looking into the Bangladesh national team matches/series archives on Cricinfo and Cricket archive and a few incidents come to mind.

1. Bangladesh's inaugural Test match against India in season 2000-2001 (1)

This is of importance and has been given a Wikipage, but the series only consisted of one Test match, not any ODIs or tour matches.

2. Pakistan's solitary ODI against Bangladesh in Dhaka in season 1998-99 the day after Pakistan had won the 1998-99 Asian Test Championship at the same place.

This ODI was hastily organised and is generally overlooked. If this event were to be included, would this merit an individual page as a series between Bangladesh and Pakistan, or as a footnote to the Asian Test Championship page? Would the ODI constitute a Pakistan tour of Bangladesh on its own or would the tour include the Asian Test Championship match?

And another thing, what is the wikipedia/encyclopedic definition of an international tour? Would I be correct to say that it is an official team visiting another single country and play its official team? My query arises from the points mentioned as well as finding that a Bangladesh team played Scotland and Ireland in 1998 although on the Cricket Archive page, the Bangladesh team is referred to as Bangladeshis, whilst Scotland and Ireland remain as they are (I assume the British Isles teams were regarded as official).

I think I've bored you with enough for now. --Madbassist 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll pass on the first part of your questions, but the second section is very interesting. On 4 July 1998, this match took place, and is listed as "Scotland v Bangladeshis". The very next day, this match was listed as "Scotland XI v Bangladeshis". Looking at the Scottish teams for the games, it's clear that the first one had a stronger line-up... but as neither was an ODI, I don't see why the first one wasn't also "Scotland XI". After all, on the (increasingly rare) occasions when the full England side play a non-international tour match, they compete as "England XI". I really don't have an answer, I'm afraid. Loganberry (Talk) 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference is in the Bangladeshis bit. My understanding is these are not official national teams, and thus do not even have List A status (as is shown on that scorecard). There's not much coverage on this area of things, though, unfortunately. It seems to be a commonplace way of naming a team when, say, a nation is playing a region, such as this, but also when playing a national 'A' team, such as this. The latter *does* have List A status, though, so I guess it's all down to the ICC's bureaucracy really... I certainly expect that's the most likely explanation anyway.
 * As for what I would say - I consider any country touring another country and playing an international match (Test, ODI, and/or/a combination thereof T20I) a tour. Some people cover A/youth team tours though (West Indies A in Sri Lanka in 2005, Bangladesh A in England in 2005, Sri Lankan Under-19s in England in 2005) - and I doubt, since FC/LA/T20 matches were played, they're eligible for deletion, but I personally don't create them meself. There certainly aren't any specific guidelines, but I would imagine that they're notable enough, especially if people actively write about them. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 05:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's normal for countries (other than England) to refer to teams chosen from tour parties for tour matches other than Tests/ODIs as "Australians/Pakistanis/etc.", as these teams aren't the official national teams and are (were) meant to give a chance for all members of the party to gain match fitness. When the hosts select a similarly unrepresentative team to play against a touring party, they are usually known as "Australian XI", etc., so I would suggest that "Scotland XI", as opposed to "Scotland", was not the official national team. I don't see why having ODI status would be necessary before such a distinction is made.
 * As for tours, I would say that all the examples could (should?) be covered in an article, but where they could be interpreted as an add-on to another series, I would probably merge them with that article. JPD (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it may be at least in part simply to do with suitable adjectives, or the lack thereof. You can distinguish between "Pakistan" and "Pakistanis", but you can't really have "England/Englanders"! Mind you, you could have "Scotland/Scots", I suppose. As I understand it, "England XI" is used for all non-international tour matches England play, even if they put out a very strong side; I was surprised that "Scotland XI" wasn't likewise used for both the matches I mentioned above. Loganberry (Talk) 14:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * When used like that, "Australian" is a noun, not an adjective, but I think you might be right - "Englishmen" doesnt' quite sound right, does it? (Of course, until the 70s, it was "MCC", not "England XI".) The matches are organised a long time before the teams are named. So, there might be a match scheduled between an XI from the English touring party and a local team, and the English selectors, for whatever reason, pick a set of players that could be the national team - but the team is still not officially the national team, so it is still not called "England". In the same way, why wouldn't Scotland be able to schedule some matches for the national team, and som eothers where they would like to field some other players? Scotland couldn't play ODIs, so they weren't going to reserve the national team title for ODIs! JPD (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know that "Australians" is a plural noun, but "Australian" is an adjective, and that's the underlying point. Loganberry (Talk) 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's both. I am Australian and I am an Australian. When it is considered appropriate to use such adjectives as nouns in this way is an interesting topic, but in the case of "Australian", it is well established and included in most dictionaries. Of course, the underlying point is whether words with this meaning exist, not whether they are called adjectives or not. JPD (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * grins* If we're not careful, we'll have an argument about something we actually agree entirely about! I've just been careless with my writing; I know that it can be both! Loganberry (Talk) 11:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Did not expect this much response from my vague questions! Been doing some research on Bangladesh cricket recently (yes, I am unemployed) and compiling a potentially huge database of series and players and relevant sources. For a nation that became independent in 1971 and an ICC associate member in the late 70s, the Tigers have played a LOT of cricket. SAARC Quadrangular Series, ACC trophies, Omar Kureishi XI touring - they really ought to be a force by now! Anyway, I plan on a thorough rewrite of a few Bangladeshi cricket page. Madbassist 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

All Out Cricket
Is this notable? Probably best merged into Professional Cricketers' Association. Advice please. &mdash;Moondyne 04:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I've seen the magazine on newstands in Australia and once had a few pleasant beers with a member of its editorial staff (IIRC we talked about Monty Panesar). It's probably far more noteworthy than many other wikipedia articles but as that is not a valid reason for keeping an article I will bow to what others think. --Roisterer 05:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say yes, it is notable in and of itself. I've seen All Out Cricket on the shelves of WH Smith, which is the largest chain of High Street newsagents in the UK. If they stock it, I think that's good enough. Actually, now I come to think about it I feel that we probably should have had an article on it some time ago, and that it should be expanded rather than merged. Loganberry (Talk) 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll leave it for now. It does need expansion, specifically some secondary sources and a statement clarifying why it is notable.   Currently it reads like one many run of the mill magazines available on newstands. &mdash;Moondyne 03:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I might remark, only slightly mischievously, here that there are not "many" cricket magazines available on the British High Street! There's the Wisden Cricketer of course, All Out Cricket, and one other if you're lucky. You're quite right about sources, of course: otherwise it's going to get challenged on the "does not assert notablity" clause, and fail, which it doesn't deserve to. Loganberry (Talk) 14:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By many, I wasn't referring specifically to cricket related magazines. &mdash;Moondyne 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Society frowns on blowing one's own trumpet...
...but a small milestone has been reached. Every one of the 107 Worcestershire players who made their first-class debuts for the county before the First World War now has some sort of article. Of course I didn't write all of them, and a number will need improvement and/or tidying up in the "next round" of editing, but it's quite nice to have got this far. Lots more work yet to be done, of course! Loganberry (Talk) 11:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Of course I didn't write all of them"... No, but you did write an awful lot of them. So congratulations to you. Johnlp 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The 1920s and 1950s will occupy a lot of time from now on, I think. Loganberry (Talk) 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I take it you are a Worcestershire fan and as such I thank you for losing so magnanimously to Sussex a day or so ago to give us our third title in five seasons! No, seriously, I've been looking through some of the Worcestershire player articles and they are very good with their emphasis on the glories of Fostershire. Well done.

I suppose I should do the same with Sussex. All Sussex players from Waymark to Fry. Erm, ah, well.... --Fiddlers Three 18:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm a Worcestershire fan, for my sins. The one-day game has been a bright spot in an otherwise awful season, and though I confess that I would have liked Lancashire to win the CC this year, frankly beating Worcs in a four-day game was never going to be the hardest job in the world! Thank you for the compliment, too; I'd love us one day to have something on every first-class cricketer, but as those run well into five figures I doubt we ever will. Loganberry (Talk) 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to Mark Ramprakash
Scores of 196 and 130* against Lancashire mean that he finishes the season with 2,026 first-class runs at 101.30, and ten centuries. I believe this makes him the only player to average over 100 in two successive English seasons. Bradman did it in 1938, 1938-39 and 1939-40, but he only played seven innings in 1938-39 and some record lists require eight. Apart from the Don, though, I can't think of anyone else who's achieved the feat. Loganberry (Talk) 17:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's now mentioned on this BBC Sport page, but (at the time of writing, anyway) the important part of the text is very badly written; this is the bit that is relevant:


 * The former England batsman, 38, scored an unbeaten 130 at the Oval as he reached 2026 runs for the season at an average of 101.30. By achieving those feats for a second year in a row he became the first cricketer in history to do so.


 * The above implies that Ramprakash scored an unbeaten 130 at the Oval (etc) last year too, and completely fails to mention the actual record: his recording a three-figure average in both years. This page from the same source is better, but still a little confusing.


 * Given the poor quality of the information in the BBC articles, I would suggest that we use another source (Cricinfo or a national newspaper, for example) for referencing this particular feat. The only one I can find so far is from inthenews.co.uk, which also specifies "county cricket" and so avoids the Bradman problem mentioned above. I'll use that for now in Ramprakash's article, but I don't know how reliable the source is considered so feel free to replace it if you want. Loganberry (Talk) 22:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It'll be a good quiz question in future years, name the England batsman who averaged over one hundred two seasons running but wasn't picked for the test team. By the way is this Kamal_Akmal just a spelling mistake which needs getting rid of? It's Kamran Akmal isn't it? Sometimes Pakistani players names go through some changes but I've never heard their keeper called Kamal before Nick mallory 12:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a mistake; Cricinfo doesn't have any record of a Kamal Akmal, and as the article specifies that he plays for the national team, I'd have thought it was certain to be Kamran Akmal. In the absence of better information from someone better informed about the Pakistani game than me, I'd say go ahead and make it a redirect to the Kamran Akmal article. Maybe an editor had his mind on Asim Kamal? Loganberry (Talk) 14:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strangely, the first BBC article I mentioned above has been slightly reworded, and the second part now reads, "He became the first cricketer in history to achieve both feats for two years in a row." Unfortunately the article is still dreadfully written, continuing to imply that he made exactly 2,026 at 101.30 last year too. Maybe someone from BBC Sport reads this page! If so, it would be nice if they got their facts right... Loganberry (Talk) 15:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps someone from BBC Sport edits this page... -- !! ?? 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That might well be the case, though if they do then I hope they give a nudge to the person responsible for the article I'm complaining about, since if you read it at face value it's just plain inaccurate at the moment. Loganberry (Talk) 23:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir Geoffrey did it twice but not in successive seasons. Did the Don not do it twice in England? --Fiddlers Three 18:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to CricketArchive, Bradman's English averages were 98.66 (1930), 84.16 (1934), 115.66 (1938) and 89.92 (1948). So no, he didn't quite manage it. Not that it would have been two successive English seasons even if he had, but "only" two successive ones he played in. Loganberry (Talk) 22:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Twenty20 Internationals > T20I
How common is this abbreviation? It's the equivalent of One Day Internationals being refered to as ODI's so with the categories should we change "Category:English Twenty20 International cricketers" to "Category:English T20I cricketers"? Crickettragic 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of references (again)
I seem rapidly to be becoming our "institutional complainer" on this subject, so I shall now annoy everyone by having another whinge! I think we have potentially quite a serious problem with the very low level of referencing on some of our articles. I'm not, this time, talking about things like scorecards which are (usually) uncontroversial and can be found easily enough via CricketArchive as long as a link to the player's stats page or similar is given; I'm referring to specific and significant items of non-statistical information that our readers are being asked to take on trust.

Tonight, as an experiment, I used a random number generator to choose half a dozen chosen biography articles dealing with English Test cricketers. I chose English Test cricketers for this "test" because they're probably what will get the most interest on an English-language encyclopedia like ours. If a player's page was a minimal stub with nothing beyond the barest of stats (eg Roger Prideaux) I "rolled the dice" again. This is what I saw...


 * 1) Thomas Mitchell (cricketer) - this is a particularly bad case; the two links given are both statistical pages from CricketArchive. There is no source provided for any of the non-statistical information in the article.
 * 2) Maurice Tremlett - the external links needed fixing (I've now done that) as they only pointed to the home pages of CI and CA; the Cricinfo page does include his obituary from Wisden Cricket Monthly, and that does back up some of the claims we make, but by no means all: for example, the obit has no mention of that his "bowling lacked control" in South Africa.
 * 3) Joe Hardstaff senior - not bad as a reasonably substantial stub. There's little beyond straightforward facts here, and I think everything could be checked starting from the CA/CI links given.
 * 4) Tom Cartwright - this bio is pretty good, with a slew of high-quality references. What it doesn't have is any inline referencing, but a bit of work with the reference material already listed at the bottom should suffice for plenty of such references.
 * 5) Geoff Cook - a stub that looks as though it's had the second para added all in one go at a later date. The first sentence of that para is simple CA-checkable stuff, but what about the second? No reference for his coaching job, nor for his children.
 * 6) Arnold Fothergill - a short article, but nevertheless it includes an unreferenced claim that England sent a weak side to South Africa in 1888-89, something not mentioned on either of the pages linked to. Dedicated cricket fans might know this and take it as read, but is it fair to expect the casual reader to do so?

Anyway, you get the point. Should anyone decide to go on a "challenging unverifiable information" drive, a lot of our cricket-related content could be at risk. Mitchell's article is clearly the most vulnerable of the six I list above, but lots of the bios have "verifiability holes". Inline referencing is badly lacking in most articles, but having some sort of reference should be the priority.

It's not just players' pages, either: I noticed while doing the above research that Wisden Cricket Monthly is totally unreferenced even though it was created in March 2005. Defunct the magazine may now be, but it deserves better than that. My own view, which may be unpopular, is that if we haven't got a solid reference to cite for "Molesworth was a moody, often withdrawn figure" then we shouldn't mention that at all in an article until and unless we find one. Loganberry (Talk) 02:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you could object to most of the articles on wikipedia in similar terms. What's remarkable is not how badly sourced articles are overall, but how accurate they are and how well they are written.  Here we have a relative handful of unpaid people, not connected in any other way and with no resources behind them, creating a huge cricket database in their free time simply for the love of it, it's remarkable how much has been achieved.  It's an evolutionary process, and things get better all the time.


 * If someone wants to object to a particular statement in a particular piece, then fine let them do so (and source it if possible or remove it) but that's no reason to start deleting stuff wholesale from existing articles if every line isn't sourced. There's a huge amount of articles to be written, and pretty much all the existing articles could be improved, but what has been achieved so far, and how much better things will evolve to be in the future, shouldn't be underestimated.


 * There's a more fundamental point in that if we remove every value judgement then the articles become mere statistical lists. Yes things should be sourced but those sources will often be books, rather than something which can be immediately googled.  An article which is made unreadable by three references per line doesn't do anyone any good.  I appreciate the concern for accuracy and verifiability, but I don't think it's the major and pressing concern that you do.  Asking everyone to cite the book or source they use is always a good idea, but I'd fight the deletionists on a line by line basis, rather than concede the whole principle that anything written in the last few years without an exact source must now go. Nick mallory 07:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Nick mallory, I've indented your comments for ease of reading, but have not changed anything else.) You're quite right that most articles don't properly conform to the WP:V and WP:RS policies, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Jimmy Wales, on the WP:V page itself, is quoted as saying (emphasis added):


 * "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."


 * I don't think that WP:CRIC editors are in the habit of adding "random speculative" information, but it is the case that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth" - which means, as I implied, that even significant information should be left out if it can't be sourced. You're right that a footnote listing an obscure, hard-to-get-hold of, book can be frustrating for a reader, but at least it's there.


 * On a personal basis, I'd probably be a little more lenient towards material written several years ago, before inline referencing became easily practical. But I suppose the fault line between us is that I fundamentally disagree that this is not a pressing concern: I think that articles like Mitchell's are accidents waiting to happen. Loganberry (Talk) 13:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I ought to make clear here that I'm not proposing some sort of mass deletion of entire articles on these grounds. Ideally what would happen would be something along the lines of what we're intending to do with cricket, but I accept that we don't have the numbers to do that all at once. As for book sources, though: I accept that these can be harder to check than online ones, but they're still much better than no source at all. And finally: accuracy must trump style, so three references per line is better than beautifully-crafted prose that isn't backed up. Loganberry (Talk) 17:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is why we must have references: Jack Martin (cricketer)'s article spent 11 months up until tonight claiming that he was the last amateur to play cricket for England. He played his one Test in 1947, when England hadn't even had a professional captain! Loganberry (Talk) 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just pointing out that the story that Len Hutton was England's first professional Test captain is a bit of a myth. The first few tours to Australia were all fully professional XIs, hence England's first professional Test captain is actually James Lillywhite jnr. I agree with pretty much everything else you say though! Andrew nixon 05:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you at all. Articles should be improved wherever possible and obviously statements should be sourced but this is going to happen naturally and gradually. A drive to go through every cricket article to source every statement by next week isn't going to happen. Nick mallory 03:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two issues here. One is inaccuracies of the Jack Martin kind (I just stopped Buddy Oldfield's single Test appearance taking place over a two-year span when he was 49): patently inaccuracies of any kind have to be corrected. But many of the things complained of aren't inaccurate at all: they just don't have the specific referencing. I'm with Nick that this needs to be a gradual and low-key effort: one effect of tagging articles or shouting about it may be that a more deletionist editor comes along and undoes much of the good work that been done by a lot of people over several years. Perhaps a start would be for some of us who've written a bit over the years to revisit our early efforts where we often made fewer citations. But I still prefer a light touch on referencing: too many references make it unreadable. And what use is an encyclopedia that can't be read? Johnlp 07:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it depends what you mean by "too many references". Adam Gilchrist, a featured article, has 150 inline references, sometimes more than one in a line. Yes, perhaps it does slightly detract from the flow of the text, but it's very far from unreadable and I think that any problems are outweighed by the solid backup such a collection of references gives what's been written. We're not writing Wisden here; we're writing a secondary-source encyclopedia. I think that means that content should be much more heavily weighted than style.


 * I have come round, to an extent, to your opinion that not every score needs its own footnote, and in my own recent bios I've tried to find a balance by referencing only a few scorecards where something particularly notable happened (it's a value judgement, but most things are). However, to use the Mitchell article once again: that has no non-stat references at all, and I can't see that that can possibly be acceptable. Loganberry (Talk) 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm more on Loganberry's side here. I'm prepared to be lenient if the sentence was added some time ago, before inline references became common, and the information is in one of the references listed at the bottom of the page. But unsourced information which the editor "just knows" is unacceptable in Wikipedia because it is impossible for the reader to know the credentials of the editor. (Having said which, I don't always practice what I preach: I wrote a stub on Lake Bohinj yesterday with no references at all. :-. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly can't claim never to have written an unreferenced article either, and I'd be willing to bet there are some bad omissions of referencing in my own bios somewhere. To be honest, though, it's the blatant cases such as the Mitchell article that concern me most. Mind you, it also needs saying that WP:BLP comes into play in Cook's case as he's the only one of my six examples who's still alive. Of course Nick is right to say that it's unrealistic to expect everything to be sorted out instantly...


 * ...but when we have an article (and quite a long one, not a stub) on a Test player - so hardly an obscure person - that has no non-statistical references, I think that ought to be a priority, as it's a pretty bad state of affairs. The Mitchell article should not have been written like that in the first place - yes, inline referencing used to be much harder, but that doesn't even have a collection of links/references at the bottom. Johnny Tyldesley (31 Tests) also has no non-stat links. Loganberry (Talk) 12:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Twenty20
As the name of the section implies, the T20 page has a list of every international. It also has a sentence, "The next scheduled match is..." which currently says the Ind vs Pak final. The section is bound to expand and I don't see an equivalent on the One-day cricket and Test cricket pages obviously. I therefore suggest that it should go to another page or be deleted altogether. What are other people's thoughts on this? <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 11:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It just needs to be copied into a new article entitled "List of Men's Twenty20 International games". Crickettragic 11:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be deleted, not copied into another article. It will soon get out of hand. I'm pretty sure we once had the equivalent article for Test matches and deleted it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Stephen here. I would prefer deleting them altogether. Such a list only has value at the beginning when not many games have been played. Speaking of which, that was a great game I just saw. So relieved that the Aussies haven't grabbed hold of the newest trophy. It is my beloved India :-) <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 15:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Beamers
Gul sent one down to Dhoni in the Twenty20 final today. Is it just my imagination, or are beamers becoming more common in international cricket than they used to be? And if so, is it possible to find a source to quote in the (currently entirely unsourced) Beamer (cricket) article about it? Loganberry (Talk) 22:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist error
Is anyone else getting "HTTP 500 Internal Server Error" when they attempt to access their Watchlist? I'm feeling rather bereft not being able to access mine. JH (talk page) 17:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I was, but it's fixed now :-) Schumi555 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And for me too. Thanks for responding. JH (talk page) 17:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Current squad in international pages
I was wondering whether we could get a consensus on who should be included in the current squad section of international team pages. There's a wide mix at the moment. India and Pakistan seem to have the best format, listing pretty much every player that's played for them lately. New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies have lists with seemingly vague criteria, Sri Lanka doesn't have one at all, England merely lists the most recent ODI squad, Australia shows a load of contracted players.

May I suggest we take a similar approach to the one taken with football articles and list all the players who have played (rather than called-up, as with football) for the team in the last year. Or perhaps extend to 18 months, seeing as some players won't play for six months in the off-season. Renaming the section "Current players" would probably be in order too.

Incidentally, this should include Twenty20 players - whilst this may mean including a few players who wouldn't otherwise come near the international side, it's taken seriously these days. Maybe a field to a table could be included saying "forms played in".

Which brings me to the next point, the way they're formatted. The tables used for India and Pakistan are good, I think it'd be good to see them implemented across the board.

So yeah, thoughts? Sorry this is a bit of a ramble. HornetMike 22:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, to respond to your Twenty20 point: the current England cricket team article does list the Twenty20 players, and not the ODI squad. My first thought is that your idea is attractive: it's sometimes hard to decide who is part of a squad and who is not, while it's much easier simply to list people who have played in the last X amount of time. (Some of the lists in Playfair Cricket Annual do this sort of thing, if memory serves.) Loganberry (Talk) 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:David Gerard
He's back again adding that ridiculous 'no free image' thing on cricketers pages eg Jimmy Adams. I thought he agreed to stop? Crickettragic 04:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted Jimmy Adams and Neil Adcock. I suggest we should feel free to revert any others that have been done. This is a user who is convinced he knows better, despite previous discussions on the subject. Other people are also objecting now on his talk page. Johnlp 07:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there was no contact between himself and the project, but simply one or two users: despite their request for him to come here and comment. I would recommend taking this to WP:AN, see what they say on the matter. He's systematically going through thousands of bio articles and adding this image as it stands. There is no official policy on the inclusion of the image, so I would say it's down to the preference of a WikiProject (ie bio + cricket combined in this case) as to whether it should be included, and this WP's stance is pretty clear on it, yet he's ignored our request. The admin's noticeboard is the only place to go now, I feel. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

English cricket team in Australia in 1932-33 and Bodyline
At the moment, the tour article redirects to Bodyline, which is a FA. If the Bodyline article is supposed to describe the tour, rather than just the tactical theory and politics, then I think it would clearly fail FARC, since the article doesn't discuss the actual results and thus would fail the comprehensiveness criteria. So, should the series be un-redirected into a cricket results type article?  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I Would say yes. JH (talk page) 09:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. It's not as if the Bodyline controversy was the only thing that happened on that tour, even if it was the one that made the most impact. Loganberry (Talk) 18:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree too, to the extent that I've been bold enough to make a start, though only a start. It can easily be reverted if someone really objects. Johnlp 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cricinfo
Hi, I have reverted an edit dumping a large amount of copied and pasted text from the Cricinfo article. It was copied from this this site. As the site seems to be licenced under this licence, I am not sure if it is a copyright violation but at the least, it does not appear that the original authors have been credited for their work. Those with more experience with copyleft licencing may be able to make more sense of that than me.

Also, even if this meets Wikipedia's licencing requirements, in its existing form the material is unencyclopaedic, not written in an appropriate tone or adequately referenced. The history of Cricinfo would be fascinating and well worth including in the article but not in this form. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 160 kB. Wow. You did the right thing. Though I'm sure there is scope to condense it into something interesting, if anyone can be bothered to wade through it... Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just realised that Cricket quiz regular User talk:Travisbasevi is presumably the Cricinfo staffer of the same moniker. &mdash;Moondyne 00:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Move "Twenty20" to "Twenty20 cricket"
I'd like to move "Twenty20" to "Twenty20 cricket". Because the latter page already exists this would require an administrator and would be awkward to change back if i've made an error. So i thought i would canvass views to assert this is the correct thing to do.Operating 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason for changing it. There isn't any other sort of Twenty20, so adding "cricket" in the title isn't needed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If i were to say to someone "let's go watch some Twenty20". There's a good chance they'd say "What's Twenty20 then?". It looks colloquial to me. Operating 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In that hypothetical conversation, you could just as easily replace Twenty20 with "cricket" or with "rugby" or whatever else you like. Andrew nixon 22:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the move isn't worth the effort. Operating 14:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

1970-71 West Indian cricket season
Hello cricket folks

I've just declined a speedy delete request for 1970-71 West Indian cricket season. It does qualify under db-blank, but I'd rather bring it here in the hope that someone on this project could expand it just a tad to bring it out of the danger zone. Thanks. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm the author responsible for this and many more like it, but I think it was a bad idea to create these things (it seemed a good idea at the time) because they are impractical. I've decided to merge them into collective articles by country and time period, so I will be proposing that these individual stubs all get deleted in due course.  --BlackJack | talk page 09:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird...
It seems that someone thinks that I'm Cayman Islands player Ryan Ebanks. See the talk page of his article. Andrew nixon 08:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well maybe you are Ryan Ebanks, but fortunately the anonymity of the WP system will protect your secret! Johnlp 16:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Category nominated for rename
Please see this discussion for details.

I've decided to merge the "bare stub" season and tour articles into period histories by country but leaving as individual articles any that have been developed to a reasonable extent. I've started with Pakistan and you can see what I'm up to if you look at History of cricket in Pakistan to 1970. I'll follow this with Pakistan cricket from 1971 and then move onto the other countries.

I think England is the only country for which we should keep individual articles about every season and tour because it has had a lot of work done while the rest simply haven't taken off. When all this merging and rewriting is done, I'll propose that all the bare stubs encompassed by the new articles are speedy deleted as db-blank and db-author.

If anyone has any suggestions or if you can help with the mergers, please let me know. --BlackJack | talk page 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Blackjack, where you are merging articles I think you will need to redirect the old ones to the new to comply with GFDL. Will probably help anyone looking for a particular tour to find the right page anyway. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ollie. I had thought about that but I was put off because of the sheer volume involved, not just redirecting articles but altering the talk pages too.  Having said that, I think I would rather go through the tedious task of redirecting than deal with those deletion pages.  Has anyone else noticed in recent months that there is a distinct lack of participation in AfD and CfD nowadays?  --BlackJack | talk page 05:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium
I see that several of you have been discussing my work on Citizendium (CZ). Thanks for the kind wishes that were expressed and I'm sure Dweller will be delighted to see that his Fighting Elf is back!

CZ is an interesting concept and certainly a huge challenge as a cricket project there must start from scratch. I created an introduction to cricket, began a glossary and did a very high-level history. All of this was useful in getting to grips with the site and comparing it with WP.

I wrote to Larry Sanger earlier today to give him my feedback, FWIW, of CZ and this is what I have concluded:
 * ''Although there is merit in allowing "experts only" it will exclude the majority of useful contributors. Those WP contributors who have registered a username (i.e., not the hit and run IP address types) may not actually be experts but they do generally make useful contributions and in considerable volumes. I believe that by effectively excluding these people, CZ is going to stunt its own growth.
 * ''WP is at one extreme with its "anyone can edit" philosophy and CZ has gone to the other. What is needed is a middle ground whereby "anyone using a registered username that has been obtained via e-mail confirmation can edit". This gets rid of the IP address vandal and allows the casual contributor to take part.
 * ''I think the CZ category system is a mess that needs to be sorted out and I don't think the subpage idea will work. These comments are made from a reader perspective.
 * ''The golden rule of publishing is to put the reader first and make sure that everything he sees on the page is useful to him. The CZ categories are based on article status or on a particular workgroup when they should be subject-based and relational (I don't agree with hierarchical category systems).
 * ''The subpage menu bar is unsightly and unnecessary. I do not understand why the reader should see a button that links him to an incomprehensible metapage. The "related articles", "bibliography" and "external sources" information should be in the body of the article and placed at the end with the citation references. Okay, an article might use a massive bibliography and so that should be in a subpage but with a link from a bibliography heading in the main article. The menubar includes a talk tab and that duplicates the discussion tab at the top of the page.
 * ''I certainly think the issues I've raised need to be addressed and especially those that concern the benefit of the site to the reader.

Larry's reply was:
 * ''You're not the only one who has the dismayingly mistaken impression that only experts are allowed on CZ. I wonder if there is a simple way we can prevent this impression in the future. But, FYI, consider the ~2000 accounts at Category:CZ Authors. We are in fact precisely as you describe the middle way. I'm sorry we don't yet have a way of making this clear--although we can't be held responsible for irresponsible misrepresentations in the press.
 * ''I also think that you probably fail to understand what subpages are for, and we also need to build some tools to ease the user into this innovation. In short it is much more than just the bibliography, external links, and related articles; those are only the default selections.
 * ''I doubt anyone would disagree with you about the substandard appearance of the subpage menu bar. The hope, as yet unfulfilled, is that one of our members will create a MediaWiki "skin" that will actually rearrange the position of various sets of links.

He may well be right about subpages once they have got the design right but I think their approach to categories is misguided and they should base categories on subject as WP does. I take his point that it is not "experts only" but I suppose using your real name must be offputting for some people, though to me it doesn't matter at all.

I think WP can learn one thing and that is to restrict edits to people with registered usernames that have been confirmed via e-mail. That would solve vandalism overnight.

So that's that. I will look in on CZ occasionally and keep the pot boiling but I have decided to come back to WP too and see what can be done with all these wearisome season and tour articles. I see another one nearly got deleted only today. Groan! --BlackJack | talk page 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was interested to see what you've been doing on Citzendium. I think the main problem they have is that Wikipedia now has something like two years start. The enormous amount of work needed to get anywhere near Wikipedia's breadth of coverage is I suspect going to deter people, especially as there will be far fewer people to do the work, due to the requirement of some degree of expertise.
 * I considered signing up myself, but was discouraged by the need to present acceptable credentials. It seemed like too much trouble.
 * With the honourable exception of yourself, at present Citizendium seems very American-dominated. For example, until the last couple of days the top-level list of sports excluded cricket and rugby. JH (talk page) 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some surprising omissions in other subjects too, John. Loads of missing countries, for example, and the history coverage barely scratches the surface.  I get the impression that there are a lot of American science degrees about the place.  Someone had made a start on soccer, however.  That's saw-ker, of course!  --BlackJack | talk page 20:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Forget about writing articles on Sri Lankan cricket, they don't even have an article on the country itself! And I noticed that the last sentence of the Bangladesh reads, About a third of this extremely poor country floods annually during the monsoon rainy season, hampering economic development. I understand that Bangladesh isn't first world, but calling it "extremely poor" without supporting it with any references would violate Wiki's WP:NPOV policy. I suspect Bangladeshis considering to join would almost instantly be deterred by such a comment, many of which are excellent contributors to Wikipedia, including eight members of WikiProject Cricket.


 * I have noticed an American-centric bias over there for quite some time now. They hugely oversimplify Asian culture. If you leave BlackJack, I think in one year from now, the cricket article may become a "Introduction to cricket for those familiar with baseball" article. :) <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Derek Shackleton
The article on this recently deceased cricketer has POV and refimprove templates. I have added some good sources (obituaries; Cricinfo profile), expanded it significantly, and removed some of the more value-laden statements. I'd be grateful iif someone could let me know if these templates can now be removed, or what further needs to be done. Thanks. -- !! ?? 09:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I put them there, so I guess I should comment! The article is a lot better now, thank you. I've removed refimprove because you have included a lot more references (although inline references &mdash; linking each statement to a reference &mdash; are preferable and are now very easy to add). The only remaining change I would like to see is a removal of all the "Citation needed" statements. These sound to me like the judgement of the original editor, which is not permissible on Wikipedia even if the editor was familiar with the subject. You've correctly identified the problematic sentences, but they should be removed altogether, or justified from the references (if there is something in the obituaries, for example) before the POV tag goes.


 * Thank you again for your work on this article.


 * Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I hoped the new references would have hit the spot.


 * I have some sympathy for the cn statements, and I had been leaving them in case the orginal editor (User:203.221.28.94 in March 2005) can support/cite them. There is a hint in the obituaries, but nothing quite as opinionated. -- !! ?? 10:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added sections to the article, it was one long lead section and not properly wikified. I removed the statements requesting cites, its very difficult to verify sweeping statements like they were and possibly just someones personnal opinion. Operating 13:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I can see why you have lumped like-with-like, but I am not particularly enamoured of the current arrangement, with the article discussing his post-cricket doings before his Test career, with that coming before his county debut.  I think a chronological order usually looks the most logical, unless there are pressing reasons why another way works better, but I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise. -- !! ?? 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was one large WP:Lead section which is discouraged, i kept the chronological order within sections as far as i can tell. I dont do a lot of bio's so i can't say exactly which section order the MOS encourages (sometimes its chronological, sometimes its in order of importance). If it feels more logical to you then by all means put England career ahead of personal life etc. I've actually got no idea who he is other than what i read, so i'll be editing another page or perhaps doing some Afd's next. Operating 16:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorting of names
I've hit a little problem here. Cricket Archive implies we should sort the names of Atif Malik, Iqbal Siddiqi, Naveed Abdul in forename surname order, but a user who reversed this name order disagrees.

What order should we put them in? Bobo. 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most Western publications, including Wisden, sort Pakistani names on the first name. (But not I think those of Indian Moslems, which seems illogical.) However I recall reading messages to the newsgroup rec.sport.cricket some years ago from at least one Pakistani poster claiming that this was the wrong thing to do. I bet that somewhere on Wikipedia itself there's an authoritative article on the correct way of ordering Pakistani names. JH (talk page) 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've wondered about this several times, and don't have an easy answer. Mention of CricketArchive reminds me that that site lists Sajid Mahmood the England Test player under M, calling him "SI Mahmood", but (for example) this Pakistani Sajid Mahmood under S, as "Sajid Mahmood". Loganberry (Talk) 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My memory is: one editor is adamant that we should sort them by their second names like all proper freedom-loving countries do. He changed them all; we objected; after some argument we agreed that he could change them in birth and death categories but we would sort them by first names in cricket-specific categories; he agreed to that; a few weeks later he came back and started changing them all again. Isn't there some Wikipedia-wide guidance, or at least somewhere we could ask? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is up to the Wikiproject to decide on name-ordering conventions. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 11:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In which case I feel I was right to act in the way I did. Thank you for your backup, DaGizza. I hope the way I've ordered them is adequate for this project, at least. Bobo. 14:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am basing my line of thought on the fact that it is WikiProject Cricket that decides the notability guidelines WP:MOS for cricket-related articles. See the second and third boxes from the bottom on the main page. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 04:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wisden Trophy
Just got page to GA and hoping to make a push for A-class. Eventually want this to reach FA. I have already put it on peer review but thought I could get more useful comments here. Monsta666 16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Authoritative sources
A poor impression I have formed of the WP cricket project is that many articles, particularly in the history categories, have what I might term "default sources". It often seems that the sources or bibliography section has been populated with titles that might contain relevant information rather than those actually used to obtain information.

That's one aspect of it but I am more concerned about the repeated use of sources that lack real authority. One that appears time and time again is a book called the Hamlyn A-Z of Cricket Records by P Wynne-Thomas of the ACS. This book is a lightweight collection of statistical trivia that might be useful to a casual fan but is not the sort of thing we should be using as a reference source for what are, after all, supposed to be serious articles with an academic goal. Why, for example, when Wisden and Playfair are quoted as sources for an article about an English season, do we also have this thing that tells us nothing but who won the title, who topped the averages and a potted summary of the season's Test matches? It won't do.

We must have sources that provide both comprehensive coverage of the article's subject and an in-depth analysis too; ideally we should also be looking for something that provides an original view or theory. You don't get that from Mr Wynne-Thomas whose history of cricket From the Weald to the World is another oft-quoted lightweight offering that is really just a high-level overview of the subject. But what do you expect from the ACS, a group that has been lambasted by Wisden for trying to rewrite history and produces in its own journal such meaty topics as Cricketer-Footballers who have Represented Watford FC and Played First-Class Cricket!?

I also think that if Wisden and Playfair are quoted, the year of the publication must be given. Obviously, the sources for 1968 English cricket season are Playfair Cricket Annual 1969 and Wisden Cricketers Almanack 1969, not Playfair Cricket Annual and Wisden Cricketers Almanack (annual)!

Another point is that we should use "Sources" or "Bibliography" as the section header because "References" is for citations.

Well, that's what I think, anyway. --Fiddlers Three 19:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. I think you'll find one editor is responsible though. Having been criticised for not including sources, he started including approximately the same list of sources in each article. Which is not really good enough for WP:V. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the great majority of that. However the Wynne-Thomas book does have two very useful features: the County Championship table for each season and the top 30 or so in the batting and bowling averages for each season. However I agree that the book has been given as a source in a lot of articles where it doesn't seem actually to have been used. I confess that I hadn't realised that one wasn't suppose to use the References heading for one's sources but only for citations. I had thought that the citations went under a Notes heading. JH (talk page) 21:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that there is no absolute policy on what is "notes" and what is "references". I've flip-flopped a bit over the years, but in general what I've finally decided on is this: "Notes" is for specific, numbered inline citations. "References" is for works consulted but from which no specific citations have been taken. "External links" is for general backup - in bio's cases, the Cricinfo/CricketArchive sites. This may not be "official", but it seems to work okay. Loganberry (Talk) 21:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you are confusing "references" and "further reading" a bit. If Mr Wynne-Thomas writes a reliable source that supports a point in the article, that's fine as a reference. Comprehensive coverage of the article's subject and an in-depth analysis too is more a criteria for the further reading section. As for the section headings, from WP:REF: All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links" [or "Bibliography"]. And anyway, if you are using sources, you should be citing them - specific facts in the article to specific pages in the book - rather than just noting that you looked at the book at the end of the article. All very much an ideal world thing, of couse. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Stephen is quite right that one editor is responsible and it was me in all those season and tour things that I now regret doing, though I'm trying to put it right. Pakistan is coming along very nicely.  But, anyway, I hold my hand up.
 * I found the Hamlyn book very useful for the sort of basic information that both Fiddlers and JH have mentioned. For example, it tells me who won the title in a given year, who was on tour and what their WDL record was, and who topped the averages.  That is all useful information for getting an article up and running as a stub.  It is true that Wisden 1969 is the definitive record for the 1968 season but I don't actually have Wisden 1969 and so I can't refer to it.  So, in a sense, by getting what I can from an introductory book of basic stats like Hamlyn, I am using a verifiable source as per WP:V.
 * Having said that, I do agree that we should try to use authoritative sources but this becomes a matter of judgment. If the same point appears in Derek Birley's social history and in PWT's Weald to World, we really should refer to Birley because his work is undoubtedly "heavyweight" and does contain "in-depth analysis".  But, as Ollie says, it's ideal world stuff.
 * I suppose citations should go under titles like "Notes and references" while more general references in bibliography form should really go under "Further reading". I'm afraid that the headings have developed in an arbitrary fashion especially as articles tend to be based on other articles and not upon true templates.  I'm not sure if there is a standard but it would be useful if there is.
 * I won't comment on the ACS except to say that some of its individual members such as Don Ambrose and Martin Wilson do produce outstanding historical material and it isn't fair that they should be tarred with the same brush as those who create what I always call the "worst kind of statistics". To be fair to PWT, his Hamlyn book does try to use stats that are meaningful and can be placed into context: he doesn't, for example, unlike Playfair, have a list of Test career runscorers presented in some sort of merit order with the likes of Atherton sitting above Bradman.  On this point, that list has a cutoff at 4000 runs and I believe Shaun Pollock will join it next year: but Graeme Pollock is nowhere in sight.
 * Going forward, I will try to be more diligent in the use of authoritative and relevant sources. --BlackJack | talk page 06:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Robot malfunction
See this :-)

I think the robot got it slightly wrong, there. --BlackJack | talk page 13:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ashes
This is really in need of help, it's certainly nowhere near FA any more and I don't think the Project should allow it to slip away in a WP:FAR... All hands to the pumps... The Rambling Man 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. I've said before that the article should concentrate on the legend and the trophy.  The series list should be removed completely and replaced by a link to the series categories.  BlackJack | talk page 20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)