Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 53

Nigel Bruce
Dear all. In Nigel Bruce, it states that he played first class cricket. I would love this too be true, but there is no citation. As pointd out on the talk page, his name does not appear at [Cricinfo http://content-www.cricinfo.com/england/content/player/alpha.html?country=1;alpha=B]. I thought the people here might know if this list is definitive or not, and sort this out. Of course if he were a cricketer, the stats would be great too! Thehalfone (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He's not on CI or CA so he didn't play first-class cricket. He did play cricket though, as he is pictured here with the Hollywood Cricket Club. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've glanced at all the Bruces mentioned On CricketArchive, bearing in mind that (according to the IMDB) his full name was William Nigel Ernle Bruce, but none of them seems to be a match, so - as Andrew says - he doesn't appear to have played f-c cricket. JH (talk page) 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, if he had played first-class cricket it would have made a nice connection with the creator of one of his famous roles... Andrew nixon (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cricket Australia annual report
I now have a copy of the 2007-08 Cricket Australia Annual Report in my hot little hand (not on line, but available on request from CA). I should have asked for the financial statements as the financial information in the AR is condensed but the highlights are (all in AUD):
 * Income from continuing operations:                   $142,841,510
 * Surplus before distributions to State Associations   $ 65,774,985
 * Surplus after distributions                          $ 24,229,564
 * Total assets                                         $128,780,929
 * Cash and Cash equivalents                            $ 71,394,032
 * Members funds (equity)                               $ 41,105,587

The largest liability is "Revenue received in advance" valued at over $45m with no further details available in this report.

Other (non-financial) items of interest are:
 * Male participation grew by 4.8% and female by 11.8%
 * Twenty20 has "TM" (trademark) after every mention

Hope this is useful to someone. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Aakash or Akash Chopra
CricketArchive spell his first name with just one A but Cricinfo have him listed as Aakash. I know CricketArchive tends to be more reliable but he's currently writing a blog for the BBC and on it his name is also spelt as Aakash. Should we move his article from Akash Chopra to Aakash Chopra? Jevansen (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If he himself is writing the blog, then I would go with AsKash. Our article on the name states it can be spelt either way so no help there. SGGH speak! 17:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Middlesex cricketers
A new user, Junius00, has added a Middlesex template-esque box to each current Middlesex player, see for example, Ed Smith. However, a template doesn't currently exist. Should we consider creating one and replacing these boxes as and when necessary? Bobo. 04:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Success of WP:CRICKET
I like this discussion: Village pump (proposals) :-D =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't resist joining in and giving us a plug. Apparently we have 0.46% of all articles on Wikipedia and, as I often say, we still have more redlinks than blue.  I think that's a great statistic and it proves, as Nichalp says in his title, the success of WP:CRIC.  ---BlackJack | talk page 07:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRIC importance assessment
Many moons ago when it were all fields round here, we had a discussion about the importance ratings and agreed that proposals for top importance articles had to achieve consensus on this page.

I would like to propose Garfield Sobers for top importance. So far, we have restricted this "accolade" to W G Grace and Don Bradman among biographies.

Sobers is widely held to be the greatest-ever all-rounder (though I think Grace is, but never mind) and is certainly the greatest West Indian player. His influence on the game is enormous and in statistical terms he was probably the second best batsman ever after The Don. When he retired he was the leading runscorer in Test cricket and held the highest score record. He was not called "King Cricket" for nothing. The ICC Player of the Year receives the Sir Garfield Sobers Trophy for good reason.

But the clincher may be the fact that he gained a massive 90 votes out of 100 in the Wisden Five Players of the Century selection. Obviously, any selection like that is going to be controversial and, if you really wanted to, you go to town on some of the judges that Wisden invited and some of the votes that those people made, but on the whole the final result was quite satisfactory. The issue that everyone expected to arise was the curse of recentism (indeed, I remember someone saying to me: "Bradman won't get in!") and, if that had been the case, Sobers could not have scored 90. You could argue that there was an element of recentism because he got "only 90". But a 90% approval rating puts him only those ten behind the Don and streets ahead of Hobbs, Warne, Richards and "the rest".

Although he would perhaps be the junior partner in the triumvirate, I think he definitely belongs to it and that we should add our tenth article to Category:Top-importance cricket articles.

What do you think? ---BlackJack | talk page 22:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a strong case. The difficulty is that, once you add one person, other people may want their own particular favourites to be added as well. We can safely ignore those who (to take a name not entirely at random) think that Ian Botham is the greatest cricketer who ever lived, but for people like Hobbs and Barnes there will be a strong case. Then there are personalities such as Lord Harris, by a wide margin the most powerful cricket administrator there has ever been, and John Arlott, whose voice was instantly recognised even by those with little interest in cricket. So I'm afraid that it could be opening a can of worms. It's probably too late now, but importance has such a substantial subjective element that I'd be in favour of doing away with importance ratings altogether. WPBiography seems to manage perfectly well without them. JH (talk page) 22:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As well as Sobers, I think we should add the other three cricketers of the century. You may not agree with the selections, but it's independant to the project. I think giving that reason for them being top importance would help prevent the category becoming over populated and keep the criteria for inclusion tight (btw, I don't think 14 is too many). I agree that importnace is subjective, I too would like to see Botham in there, but I don't really see how that can be helped. Nev1 (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I am more of an inclusionist than an exclusionist, but I'm surprised that top importance isn't for all 5 cricketers of the century (as AFAIK, there is no "ICC Cricket Hall of Fame" to go by -I should copyright that name) plus major record holders (ie Sachin & Murali and maybe Lara) and all test playing nations ie Australia national cricket team . Expanding away from players, I think Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, Test cricket, One Day International and/or Limited overs cricket, First-class cricket and Twenty20 cricket should also all be top-importance.  You could make a case for List of cricket terms, The Ashes and  Lord's Cricket Ground as well. In it's current format, Forms of cricket shouldn't be there, as it spends more time talking about extremely minor/local/non-notable forms of the game, not the main ones, which are barely mentioned. The-Pope (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Amended proposal
...''importance has such a substantial subjective element that I'd be in favour of doing away with importance ratings altogether. WPBiography seems to manage perfectly well without them''...

How true. I absolutely agree and I think we should remove the importance parameter from the project template. It would be easily done and, although you would still see "importance=mid" on a talk page, it would not register as a parameter. Would we lose anything by it apart from a lot of pointless argument? The key element in the article assessment process is the quality of the article (i.e., stub to FA) and we have objective criteria for that. Why not take a realistic view of "importance" and leave it to individuals to decide what is, and what is not, important to them personally?

I vote that we remove the importance parameter from the template. ---BlackJack | talk page 07:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought the WP:1.0 people liked to use it? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They do. As long as we don't activate a bot to remove "importance=" from every cricket talk page and we don't strip out the existing categories, I think they will be okay.  I've recently made sure that any article with a quality rating of start or above does have an importance rating so their matrix will still be meaningful to them.  The change I would make is to remove the importance display on the banner.  ---BlackJack | talk page 09:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the importance rating is useful to many (not least those new to cricket and wanting to surf our most important historical figures) and should be kept.

It would be best if we found an NPOV manner for rating - surely the 10 Wisden Cricketers of the Century and the non overlaps from Six Giants of the Wisden Century (Victor Trumper, Sydney Barnes and Tom Richardson) should all be granted the highest possible importance. --Dweller (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That would help. but it only covers players. How do you then rank administrators, writers and broadcasters relative to the players? It gets even more difficult when you attempt to compare people's importance with that of clubs, grounds, tours, etc. JH (talk page) 10:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We would have the problem of when to stop because Cardus admitted that his view is not necessarily right and he was much more concerned about who he left out than who he selected. If you cut off the 20th century selection at number 10, what about the three considerable players who were only a vote or two behind: Messrs Gavaskar, Barnes and Hutton, no less.
 * Also, to reiterate the point made by JH, what about someone like Harris whose importance to and influence upon the game was immense? What about a one-off like Jardine whose impact is still felt today?
 * I'm afraid we can't get away from the subjective element if we keep the importance scale and all we can do is form a consensus about each case, which is our current position. Maybe we should just say: Grace, Bradman and that's it.  But on balance I agree with JH that we are giving ourselves an impossible job and we should simply cut the knot.  It's bad enough deciding who should be top importance but the threshold between high and mid is even worse to define; and the one between mid and low.  ---BlackJack | talk page 10:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is it really doesn't mattter - it's just a guide. Some never know it exists, others use it as a guide to target their editing, some may use it to one day make a CD/DVD.  I'd stick to some guidelines, use consensus and not be too worried about the fine details or thin edge of the wedge type of arguments (ie if you let X then Y,Z and ABC will be that level too.  Subjectivity is OK because it's only a behinds the scenes part of the encyclopedia, not the main part. The-Pope (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whilst I wouldn't necessarily accept that The-Pope is infallible, he (or she) has made some very good points, and I think that I've been persuaded to change my mind. JH (talk page) 14:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I'd like to subjectively propose that all of the chaps I mentioned above are made highest level of importance. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So in addition to Garfield Sobers, the proposal is to allocate top importance to Jack Hobbs, Shane Warne, Viv Richards, Dennis Lillee, Frank Worrell, Wally Hammond, Denis Compton, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Victor Trumper, Sydney Barnes and Tom Richardson. Any more? ---BlackJack | talk page 17:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly seems that we have a consensus to keep the ratings although I don't think anyone is very comfortable with them. The problem is subjectivity and we need to have a mechanism in place whereby we can veto anyone who insists that the latest limited overs six-hitter is better than Bradman ever was.  I believe our assessment standards already provide this.


 * The definition of a top importance article is that it "is of the utmost importance to the project, as it provides key information about a major topic that is fundamental to a study of the subject". This definition applies widely across numerous projects although it might have been slightly reworded for our specific purpose.  In our standards, we have written that the purpose of the importance ratings is "to enable project members to assess the importance of individual articles within the context of the project's subject-matter. In this case, the subject-matter is cricket. Note especially that it is essential to use assessments as objectively as possible by application of the criteria in the status table and (relatively speaking) not subjectively based on your personal view of, for example, a particular player's merit. Unfortunately, a measure of subjectivity is necessary where assessment of people's importance is performed".


 * The standards go on to note that "any high rating for a player or team is subject to approval by a registered assessor and that an assessor may veto any top or high nomination if he/she considers that it is inappropriate and is based on hero-worship or another subjective motive". At present, there are seven registered assessors although I think only four are currently active on the project.  Anyone else is welcome to register, of course, but it does mean you should perform reviews.


 * Picking up a good point made by The-Pope, I think we should extend top importance to anyone who has broken a major record. That lets in the likes of Rhodes, Murali, Trueman, Laker, Verity, Hirst, Hutton, Lara, Bob Taylor, Gilchrist, etc.  As for influential people like Harris and even Packer, or villains of the piece like Jardine, I think we can trust ourselves "to use assessments as objectively as possible by application of the criteria in the status table".  This also applies to non-biographical articles such as Australia national cricket team and Wisden Cricketers' Almanack mentioned above.


 * As long as a rating can be justified, there shouldn't be a problem. For example, bearing in mind that Graeme Pollock is a current project initiative, how does he qualify for the top bracket?  I would say that he qualifies by virtue of a Test batting average of 60-plus.  I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) there are only four retired players who have done this, so it is a special career achievement that is measurable in objective terms even if he has not actually broken the record (now I wonder who does hold that record?).


 * If no one has any serious disagreement with any of that, I'll make a few changes later this week. I'll come back here with a summary of those changes and make sure we're all happy, or at least not unhappy.  ---BlackJack | talk page 07:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

H'mmm! I notice that our friends over at Category:Top-importance football articles do not allow any people into their top category, not even Pele. As there is a real time constraint involved in sorting out the wheat from the chaff, as it were, I intend to adopt the football approach for the time being and I've changed the importance scale criteria to match theirs, but I will review all of this at a later date (unless someone else wishes to take it all on in the meantime). This means that Grace and Bradman go down to high importance with other top players and I'll promote a few more of the articles that are key to the playing of the game, such as cricket bat or wicket-keeper, all of which is consistent with soccer's precedent. ---BlackJack | talk page 08:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say, I find it hard to stomach the idea of Bradman not being of top importance, because of his place in the culture and popular understanding of cricket as well as his actual achievements. I realise that it's hard to draw a line, and players especially are likely to attract fans who fail to rate them objectively, but I would be happy if Bradman alone among players were top importance. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your feelings. But if Bradman goes back to top, then Grace has to also because his influence on the sport was even greater.  At the moment, I'm following the soccer project's precedent by keeping players and teams out of the top category and I think it is a better approach because you can accept a large number of high importance players but not of top importance.  I'm applying Dweller's suggestion to high importance whereby a player must have been rated world-class by a reputable source (e.g., inclusion in one of Wisden's greatest players lists).  ---BlackJack | talk page 16:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would rank Grace ahead even of Bradman, as it's far from certain that cricket would have become the dominant summer game in England without him. (Admittedly, cricket no longer occupies that position, but it did for a hundred years or so.) I'm not sure that we should necessarily follow football's lead, as I don't think that in their sport any single individual has been quite so dominant a figure as Grace or Bradman (not even Pele). (You could argue that the most important single figure in football history was C. W. Alcock, who organised the first internationals and started the FA Cup, and was thus even more important in the development of football than that of cricket, but the football project has only rated him as "mid".) JH (talk page) 19:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy with Grace and Bradman too. I think we can learn from the football project not to expand it to, say, 10 names, because then it continues to expand. But I don't see that we have to have a strict rule that no people are top importance. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, it looks as if we might have come full circle. If no one disagrees, I suggest another dose of flexibility should be applied and I restore our former resolution that only WG and the Don can be rated top importance.  This means that Sobers, Mynn, Small, Warne, Hobbs and all the other all-time greats can only ever be high.  I'll leave it a couple of days and then make the change.
 * I've waded my way through the unassessed and unknown importance categories and I think I've given all the significant subjects a rating now, including several that do belong in the high level. Some are bound to have escaped my scan so please deal with them if you spot them and also rate any starts that I've called a stub by overuse of copy-and-paste to speed the process.
 * I've reduced the number of high importance biographies by using Dweller's sensible proposal around an objective measure that the person must have been included in one of Wisden's lists or else, as with non-players and early players, there is clearly documented evidence in a reputable source that he was the greatest of all time or whatever: e.g., John Small was the first person in history to be described as a superstar. I've taken numerous sources at their word about the massive influence that Lord Harris imposed on the sport and I've also heeded numerous sources that emphasise the importance of Bodyline and, hence, the massive impact that Jardine has had upon the game's history.  Other people can be given high ratings too but there has to be that sort of justification by reference to reputable sources and not just that he hit a few sixes in a Twenty20 match last week.  I've made free use of Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World which explains the possibly surprising inclusions of people like Jeff Thomson and Bert Vogler.
 * By the way, John, I'm interested in football history too but only as a reader and you are absolutely right about Alcock without whom, etc. Good grief, without him there would have been no Liverpool.  Unthinkable.  Then again, there'd have been no MUFC and no Fergie so perhaps he does have a lot to answer for......  ---BlackJack | talk page 07:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, it doesn't really matter, but it is interesting to see what other Projects do. I'm surprised that football has things like Midfielder and Transfer (football) as tops, but not Pele.  Baseball has 111 top level articles, with 10-20 players/administrators - mainly past generations, but Barry Bonds is there alongside Babe Ruth.  Formula One has 17 of its 45 top articles on drivers/people. Golf has a lot of its 85 top articles on players, past and present. NBA has only 4 (and 2 are current players).  Both Rugby League and Union, swimming, tennis and olympics have no people in their top articles.  American Football/NFL/College Football, Ice Hockey, Boxing and Martial Arts don't seem to use importance at all.  So it's a mixed bag, most tend to list the most important people, but some make the stand and don't.  And remember as much as we Aussies and Poms might agree that WG and The Don stand alone, a billion Indians might not! The-Pope (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland cricket team
Just a note to say that I've nominated the article on the Irish cricket team for GA, any suggestions or constructive criticism would be gratefully received. Nev1 (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For anyone who's interested, the Ireland cricket team is now a GA. Nev1 (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

West Indian domestic team categories
After taking a look at Category:Players in West Indian domestic cricket by team, it seems that we need to be more consistent with how categories are named. Both Jamaica and Guyana are listed as demonyms while Trinidad and Barbados are as is. As West Indian domestic cricket is a unique case where the teams are also nationalities; do we need to have two seperate categories? Eg Guyana cricketers (those who played for the team) and Category:Guyanese cricketers (Guyanese who played elsewhere). We are already doing a similar thing for Ireland and Scotland. Jevansen (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is the same problem with category:Antiguan and Barbudan cricketers. The parent category is about domestic teams so to my mind these sub-cats should be Guyana, Jamaica and Antigua cricketers. ---BlackJack | talk page 04:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Gilbert gets a statue
Great to hear that a life size statue of Eddie Gilbert is being unveiled today at Allan Border Field. If any BrisVegasites can swing by and get a photo of Gilbert that would be great. --Roisterer (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Gary Sobers
Would anyone have a free-to-use image of Gary Sobers, please, preferably a photo taken during the 1960s? Thanks very much. ---BlackJack | talk page 05:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

List of cricketers
There are three FLs that are related to this WikiProject that WILL be nominated for removal in 4 days if they are not following ALL of the featured list criteria. The main problems are that the proses are too short, the stats haven't been update for a while, and it seems to lack a bit of reference. The three lists I am talking about are: List of Australian ODI cricketers, List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers, and List of Indian ODI cricketers. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 01:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that the lists mentioned are not up to scratch. Is anyone willing to improve the leads of the articles? (I could update the stats, but it's very tedious and I may not have enough time). Nev1 (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't Sam Korn's bot update the stats regularly? Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it will need a fair amount of reprogramming and, in particular, standardisation of the lists. But Sambot WILL be up to the task.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

All three of the above lists are up for FLRC. They are here, here, and here. Thanks for your co-operation. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 02:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As they are FLRC's, not FLC's, should the links point here, here, and here? Bobo. 03:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing things up! :D --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 04:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

England cricket biography stubs
If someone gives the okay, I was going to work on creating categories for Category:English cricket biography, 1990s births stubs, Category:English cricket biography, 1960s births stubs, and all decades down from there, as per Category:English cricket biography, 1970s births stubs, etc.

Is anyone against me doing this? Bobo. 01:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea. It breaks the stubs into timespans and can help anyone working on a particular era.  ---BlackJack | talk page 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds a good idea if there are enough articles in those categories. However, all stub types are managed by the stub project, who have quite strict rules on naming and number of articles per category, so all new ones have to be proposed at WP:WSS/P first. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Bobo, have you thought about unknown birth dates? There are a lot of these among the 18th century players and I'm finding more as I go into the 19th century.  They are categorised in category:Year of birth unknown.  ---BlackJack | talk page 08:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what my next question was going to be: Category:English cricket biography, unknown birth year stubs? That's a slightly unwieldy title, but what do you think? Bobo. 11:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I never realized how much work it would entail for something that would, in the long run, produce such little reward in the eyes of those approving it. Perhaps this was one of my sillier ideas. I thought there were hundreds more cricket biography stubs, in various nationalities, than there actually are. Probably not worth the kerfuffle in that case. Bobo. 11:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Graeme Smith
I'm hopeless at maths. How many runs does Smith need to make today to average 50+ in Test cricket (assuming he's not out and assuming he's out)? 40* is not a bad start... --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He needs to make 89 SGGH speak! 11:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 89 not out. If he's dismissed then he would need 139. Jevansen (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ops, forgot to add todays innings. He is still here, 91! SGGH speak! 14:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Supersport series
I'm covering the 2008-09 domestic cricket seasons in personal documents, but am yet to make lists relating to the 2008-09 South African SuperSport series.

Can anybody explain to me how the bonus points system works? I understand the table as far as: Win = 10 pts   Draw = 0 points    Loss = 0 points - but I do not understand where fractional batting points are derived from. Can anybody be of assistance? Thanks in advance. Bobo. 01:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The explanation in a recent Wisden is: Bonus points awarded for the first 100 overs of each team's first innings. One batting point was awarded for the first 150 runs and 0.02 of a point for every subsequent run. One bowling point was awarded for the third wicket and for every subsequent two. Checking a couple of matches of this season and the scoring system remains the same. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you J. That makes sense, looking at recent results. So, taking this match as an example, if the Titans scored 211 all out in the only innings they batted, they would score 1 point for reaching 150 runs, and a further 1.22 runs for scoring a further 61 runs on top of that 150. Bobo. 14:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1.22 *points* rather than runs yes. That scorecard doesn't give the score after 100 overs for the Dolphins innings but using the batting points awarded you can work it out, 1pt for 150, 2.4/0.02=120, so the Dolphins had scored 270 after 100 overs. Anyways Cricinfo does have the same points system stated above. The Provincial competition in South Africa has a similar yet different points system, it's the first 85 overs (100 in the SSS), 1 batting point for the first 100 runs (150), 0.02 of a point for every subsequent run, 1 bowling point for the second wicket (third wicket) and 1 for every subsequent 2 wickets. It may be complicated but at least in South Africa they stick to 'only' two decimal places unlike Sri Lanka. --Jpeeling (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant points and I typed runs, thank you for not misinterpreting me! I'm on the wrong computer to calculate these points-at-100-overs totals right now, but I will do so soon enough.


 * Thank you for the clarification. I await with excitement the points system changing next year just as I have memorized the intricacies of this one! Bobo. 17:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Billy Gunn (cricketer)
I've just upgraded the article somewhat, adding information about his abilities as a footballer, but the cricket section is basically a c+p of his Wisden award comments, which are inappropriate in tone and anachronistic. Anyone fancy fixing it? --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether the article should be moved to "William Gunn (cricketer)"? His mates may have called him "Billy", but I don't think that cricket followers did to any great extent. At any rate, in all the cricket books I've read, he always seems to have been refered to as "William Gunn". JH (talk page) 10:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wondered the same thing. I'd support a move. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. In fact, I had never seen him referred to as Billy until I read it on here.  We had a discussion on here, perhaps two years ago, about the use of nicknames because of one editor who insisted upon using them despite reference to a formal first name in all sources.  We agreed that the title of the article must be the name in universal use or the one used in the majority of sources, as this complies with the site's verification rules, and we incorporated this into WP:CRIN.  I remember we redirected "Billy Caffyn" back to William Caffyn per the sources, so that is a precedent for Gunn if needed. ---BlackJack | talk page 11:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved it to William Gunn (cricketer) and made sweeping changes to the cricket section as suggested by Dweller, but it needs a lot of expansion and is back to a stub for cricket purposes. ---BlackJack | talk page 18:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cricket on pt:
Just to underline that cricket is conquering the Portuguese version of Wikipedia. Somebody called Maxtremus has created articles on all the World Cup's editions and on the Australian state competitions. That could be a good person to contact if articles are needed on other Wikipedias, as it was required for Graeme Pollock a few days ago... Why not keep somewhere a list of people to contact on other versions of WP if needed? OrangeKnight (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea. Keeping a list of crosswiki contacts will only strengthen the project. We can make a WikiProject Cricket embassy page on the lines of Wikimedia Embassy =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

List of ... cricketers (again)
One comment that's been raised is should lists such as List of Australian ODI cricketers be moved to List of Australia ODI cricketers as case such as Hong Kong have a problematic demonym and you don't necessarily have to be Australia to play for Australia (eg: Kepler Wessels). This would bring the article in line with the cricket team (ie: it's Australia national etc rather than Australian ...), any thoughts? Nev1 (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Another example would be Ed Joyce who is an Irish ODI cricketer, but has never played ODI cricket for Ireland. It's a similar thing to our previous discussion on Northern Irish cricketers. I really think we need to move all categories/lists that relate to national sides to "Country name" international cricketers, etc, to remove any possible confusion. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's ok with everyone, I'll start moving the articles. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: I'm now moving the pages. Nev1 (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All done. Nev1 (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just noticed - do we have a similar issue with categories? wisems (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While we're on the subject, I've noticed that there's a fair amount of variation in the formats used for the stats tables in these lists. Some of the stats are a year or more out of date, and I'm sure it would be easier to keep them up-to-date if the formats were standardised. I'm happy to do this if people think it would be helpful. Does anyone have any views on what the standard format should be? wisems (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, if we want Sambot to update the articles, they'll all need the same format. List of Irish ODI cricketers was recently promoted and I propose we pretty much use that as a template (the only thing missing from it is a column for 5 wicket hauls as no one in the Irish team has one, but articles for Scotland and Australia have one) . Nev1 (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On formatting ...
I think the move from this

to this

is going backwards and prefer the former. From what I can see at Help:Sorting its not possible to have two header rows, and be sortable, but I think that it just makes the table so much easier to read. Opinions? –Moondyne 23:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Disclosure: I think I may have introduced the 2-row header a long time ago, so admit to being biased. –Moondyne 11:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is harder to read and interpret - which is probably the aim. I like sortable tables, but I'm not sure of the benefits here - yes we could sort by average/wickets etc, there are probably several columns which wouldn't be sorted, and we've got statsguru to use (assuming people know it's there). I wonder whether there are too many columns to make the sorting practical. If there were only 6 columns longer descriptions could be used and it wouldn't look so crowded. But I'm not persuaded either way yet.


 * Both to my elderly eyes are pretty unreadable. But the first is less so. Does anybody ever think we might be writing this for readers? Johnlp (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless people have realistic proposals rather than complaints, nothing can be done. I'm intrigued, Mdcollins1984 suggests 6 columns, which would these be? Even cricinfo has 14 and cricket archive 10. My own opinion is that the second is better as the columns are sortable; while I agree the first looks better, I feel that having the information sortable is of more benefit to the reader, especially as there is a key provided. Nev1 (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Nev - that was a hypothetical "if a table had fewer columns it would be easier to read". I wasn't actually suggesting removing some of these. The columns we have are fine. The question to my mind is "is sortability more important than ease of reading".&mdash;MDCollins 17:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, there may be a way to get both, but I certainly don't know enough about tables. Nev1 (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The second table overspills to the right on Opera - but is fine on Safari. I'm on the wrong computer to debug browser-by-browser, but the first table is much neater across-the-board. Bobo. 10:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Both tables behave with me (Firefox/Linux). As for the comparison between the two in terms of readability, my own feeling is that the first is better if you're happy with the list in the order it's given, but that the lack of sorting ability hampers it otherwise. Unfortunately if I were writing such a table purely for my own use, the very first thing I'd do is make the batting, bowling and fielding sections different colours, which I believe is a no-no for Wikipedia. Loganberry (Talk) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a nice suggestion, but I can't see it flying with FLC (for one list I worked on it was said that the table should be plain so colour-blind people can read it). Nev1 (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the first, per Moondyne. ---BlackJack | talk page 18:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I do too. I've had a look at Help:Sorting, and there doesn't appear to be any way to have two header rows in a sortable table. Does anyone find the sorting particularly useful? On some of the lists, e.g. List of Australia Test cricketers, the list of players is broken up into chunks (by time period), which is quite helpful, but it means that sorting on those would be pretty meaningless anyway.


 * What about the actual columns in the table? I think there is scope for having different columns for the different forms of the game, e.g. batting strike rate and bowling economy rate for ODI/Twenty20 but not Test. wisems (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strike rate and bowling economy would certainly be more useful, but I resisted adding them in the first place as the table is getting a bit wide. As for is the sorting actually useful, when I was trying to find out who had most runs and wickets I found it useful, however I was finding out so I could put it in the lead. I'm leaning towards getting rid of sorting and putting everything in the lead; this is already done to some extent as some stats like highest score, and best bowling figures are mentioned in the lead (for the Irish list anyway). I won't be updating the List of Australia ODI cricketers, List of India ODI cricketers, and List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers until consensus is reached as if I get it wrong it will create more work later. Nev1 (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Year of the Four Emperors link to cricket article
Some time ago, I inserted a link in the "See also" section of the above-mentioned article, linking to the Featured Article, West Indian cricket team in England in 1988.

The link was using the notable sobriquet that series has earned, reflected (and referenced) in the Lead, the "summer of four captains".

I've been approached by a user (and another who agrees with him) that such a link is inappropriate for a serious article; it's "irritating to the average serious reader" and "the irrelevant and ridiculous reference seriously harms the article's integrity".

My response is that it does no harm, the "See also" list for the article is short, and it's just the kind of whimsical link our readers (who aren't all serious scholars) may like.

We disagree, so I suggested I'd post here and see what you serious lot think. Do you think it's inappropriate and makes the article seem less serious in some way? Happy to go with consensus here - and I'd like to think I'm fairly good at judging consensus.

This is probably a storm in a teacup, and perhaps I'd have responded differently if I'd been approached in a positive manner in the first place, but hey ho.

See it for yourself (as I write, it's there) at Year_of_the_Four_Emperors. --Dweller (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clear that our article should link to the classics article, if that's really where the name came from (do we have a citation for it, by the way?). It does seem a bit strange to me that the classics article links to the cricket article. Nobody who looks at the emperors wants to know about the cricket reference, so it's not really relevant in that article. If someone wants to know all allusions to the Yo4E, they can use "What links here". Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Dweller's correspondents should concern themselves with that nasty looking tag they've got at the top of their "you cannot be McEnroe" article which tells them that they have no citations, no verification, etc. Don't these people realise that classics can be fun too?  I suggest you refer them to Aristophanes, the man who invented comedy drama and the concept of Cloudcuckooland aka CfD.  ---BlackJack | talk page 22:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The user who wrote to Dweller about this has made a mountain out of a molehill and that is what is annoying. I'm sure that if he had been WP:BOLD and just edited the line out instead of creating a great big issue, no one would have thought anything of it.  The article needs a lot of work especially around providing references so why doesn't he just get on with it?  ---BlackJack | talk page 09:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better not to intervene to your conversation but I feel calmer today (yesterday I was ready to post an angered response but fortunately I refrained). Now I see that the issue went out of proportion quite a bit (my fault, primarily). I will attempt to explain my initial reaction. I was ready to add some referenced stuff to the article when I saw the sequence "Year of Five Emperors, Year of the Six Emperors, Summer of the four captains". In my country, most likely this would be universally perceived as mocking. It was my fault, a non-native should be more careful with such conclusions. To add more insult to injury, I considered the link to the cricket article as an attempt to make an insidious vandalism (hey, I know Aristophanes from the original but I am used to the seriousness of traditional scholarly works). I would expect from an admin to be able to detect possible cultural/social differences and control his anger but, anyway, it was me who started it in the first place. In any case, I would prefer the discussion of the issue in a more relevant wiki project (if they don't have more important things to do) but I am still interested in the outcome of your discussion. Dipa1965 (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the link would belong more in some sort of "In Popular Culture" section that is on the odd historical article - there must be a couple of films, documentaries, etc, on the subject, so why not a brief paragraph on those, along with the reference to the "Summer of four captains"? Andrew nixon (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

W G Grace
I've been trying on and off for the last month or so to knock this article about "the greatest of all cricketers" into some sort of structured shape but I'm having a lot of difficulty with missing citations for statements that seem, on the face of it, to be useful. I'm stuck with these two which are contradictory and I wonder if anyone can help:


 * Grace made his first-class debut in June 1865 when he was still only 16 but already 6ft (1.83 m) tall and weighing 11 stone (70 kg).
 * Grace was rather corpulent in later life but, as a young man, he was fit and athletic. He was 6ft 2in (1.88m) tall and usually weighed about 12st.

I've got a couple of books about WG and have just bought another one on eBay (for a quid plus postage!) but as yet I haven't seen anything that confirms his height and weight other than a vague comment by Eric Midwinter that he was over 6ft tall.

The biggest problem with the article is that some past editors think anecdotes about Grace are more encyclopaedic than his actual achievements and I've removed nearly all those except for the tale of Jonah and the Beard which is referenced, separately, by both Fry and Jackson.

If anyone can provide precise references that state WG's height and weight at different times in his career, I'll use them. Otherwise, I think I will take both statements out and simply quote Midwinter's estimate. Thanks. ---BlackJack | talk page 21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anecdotes, OR, self-opinion and flowery, over-hyped fansite language plague many many many of the articles, unfortunately. Including the articles of some of the greats. It is tough work cutting it all away from so many articles. I shall have a read through Grace's to see if I can find any left. In the mean time, perhaps leave out the info until we are sure, unless one of the above sources is hugely more reliable than the other. SGGH speak! 01:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

1911 Britannica http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/William_Gilbert_Grace :
 * At the acme of his career he stood full 6 ft. 2 in., being powerfully proportioned, loose yet strong of limb.


 * It was in 1865 that he first took an active part in firstclass cricket, being then 6 ft. in height, and t i stone in weight,  (I suspect that the optical character reader translated "11" to "t i") Tintin 04:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tintin. I'll use that.  ---BlackJack | talk page 09:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems possible that, having begun f-c cricket so young, he grew from 6ft to 6ft 2in subsequently. As for the anecdotes, I think that some are so well known that, where they are included in reputable biograpghies, they should be included, though carefully caveated. I think the fact that they were attached to Grace tells us something about the way that he was perceived. Incidently, when a bot keeps replacing instances of "cn" by a dated "fact" tag, why are you spending a lot of effort changing them back? It doesn't seem worthwhile. Similarly for the two possible ways of linking "cricketer" to "cricket". JH (talk page) 10:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I always work in TextPad and I update my version when another credible editor changes the master copy, but I ignore that smackbot thing which is a waste of space so, in my working copy, the "cn" tag stays put. Then, when I next update the master with my latest working copy, the cn tags go back in.  So, no effort, I'm just ignoring a pointless bot.  :-)
 * My complaint about all the WG anecdotes is that they were not verified and some of them were definitely fiction or else too trivial for words. I have seen the Fry and Jackson versions of the Jonah tale and those confirm it, despite the efforts of some other writers to reinvent it in a Test match.  ---BlackJack | talk page 17:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not so much verifiable quoted anecdotes that are the issue, it is when a user writes his own opinion in with something like "Anderson, wayward as always, fired a number of ridiculous long hops down to an unstoppable Tendulkar, who flicked them away with such careless ease as is common with the Little Master" or something like that, lol. SGGH speak! 11:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Re anecdotes, I agree with both BlackJack and JH. The anecdotes are a huge part of the character that WG was. But the article is already quite long and there is still a lot to say about his cricketing exploits. Maybe we should have a few child articles to deal with the anecdotes, controversies etc. Tintin 03:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is starting to look necessary as there is enormous scope for the financial issues surrounding WG and EM. This is before you get down to gamesmanship, incidents like Midwinter and the rows he had with the likes of Conway and Hornby.  I think a separate article called something like Controversies involving EM and WG Grace is very likely.  ---BlackJack | talk page 05:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with an image
Hello everybody,

I've just found that, uploaded today on commons, has a bad licence. It cannot be PD-Australia, because it has been taken in England. It seems to be copyrighted. See. I'm nearly sure that it comes from CI. Am I wrong? I'm afraid there could be some other mistakes of this kind. OrangeKnight (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it was taken in England? What is the copyright expiry term for a photo taken in the UK?  ---BlackJack | talk page 20:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Getty Images states that it's a photograph of the match Australians vs. Worcestershire at Worcester in 1930 (which is this one and indeed, Woodfull and Jackson opened the batting). The copyright expiry term for a photo taken in UK is linked with the date of the author's date, isn't it? (in this case, author is E. F. Corcoran) OrangeKnight (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For literary works, it's 70 years after the author's death. I'm not sure if it's the same for photographs. I'm sure that there's a Wiki article that would tell you. JH (talk page) 20:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * George Beldam died in 1937. So if the 70 year rule applies, we are free to use his photographs including the famous Trumper off-drive Tintin 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another point. If the photo was taken in England but first published in Australia, maybe it's possible that Australian copyright law might apply rather than English? JH (talk page) 21:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice that one of the photos in the W G Grace article comes from the LordPrice Collection which clearly states that it owns copyright, etc., etc. The photo was taken in 1885, presumably in England, and the author is unknown.  Assuming the author died in or before 1938, are we at liberty to use that photo even though it has apparently come from the LordPrice Collection?
 * What is the position with scans? So, if I see the Trumper drive photo in a book, am I at liberty to scan it and upload it to WP?  ---BlackJack | talk page 06:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you scan an out-of-copyright piece, then surely you own the copyright of the scan as it is a derivative work. Thus, you would have the right to label it as PD (or CC, or GFDL) as you wished. We need to be careful here, as the Americans have a PD-art tag, which relies on the apparent need in US law for a scan, photo etc of a work to have "originality of expression" for the scan/photo to gain its own copyright. As I understand it (IANAL, etc) that "originality of expression" is not required under UK copyright law. Thus, a simple head-on photo of an Old Master in a National Trust handbook is covered by copyright in the UK, even though it might well not be in the US. This is particularly important with regard to uploading images to the Commons, which requires that an image be free in both the US and its country of creation. Loganberry (Talk) 00:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On one point there, at one time when I was looking into image licences, I'm sure I was told that claims of copyright should be regarded as such, not taken as gospel. --Dweller (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So we can call their bluff, as it were, the onus being on them to prove copyright? ---BlackJack | talk page 09:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's more that if we dig in and find the image is not in fact covered by copyright, we can ignore the claim. Perhaps a subtle difference from what you wrote? --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, a photograph published taken in UK by a non-unknown author can clearly not be PD-Australia. Or can it? OrangeKnight (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wilf Slack
I'm giving his article a c-e, upgrade and expansion. If someone would like to upgrade his infobox, I'd be grateful. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And if someone could also fix the cricket archive and cricinfo ELs too, that'd be good. I just don't do coding very well. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done for the links. OrangeKnight (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks you star. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As well as the infobox, if anyone can find an image of him that we can use, that'd be smashing. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jpeeling's done the infobox - thanks for that. --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible idea
Combining the CricInfo and Cricket Archive profiles into one single external link thusly:

Thus for Michael Vaughan we would have:

* What do people think? SGGH speak! 14:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea - it'd be more elegant if the linked text were the name of the source, not the player. --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wouldn't have the player's name on the line. It's the sources that are important.  ---BlackJack | talk page 16:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (goes to edit) let me know what you think of the changes:

SGGH speak! 18:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The wording rather makes it sound as if the profiles belong to WP:Cricket, which they don't, so I would just begin "Player profiles..." JH (talk page) 19:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is just because that is the title of this page, it uses the page name to generate the first half of it. For example at User:SGGH/sandbox it says "User:SGGH/sandbox". and on Michael Vaughan's page it would say "Michael Vaughan's..." SGGH speak! 20:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only issue I can see thus far is that it would no longer give the wiki links to the articles on CricInfo and Cricket Archive (not that there has ever been a template for, and thus a wikilink in the external links to, Cricket Archive) SGGH speak! 20:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from this one: cricketarchive, which displays:
 * You must have missed that - I made it about 6 months ago, although as it looks the same as the format people have been adding manually, you might not have spotted it. A joint one isn't a bad idea though. But as BJ said, it wouldn't have the wikilinks to CI or CA in... A bot could merge them all once agreed...&mdash;MDCollins 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I the only person who doesn't see the point of these particular templates? Do they really save us any time? We still need to copy most of the link from CI or CA, so why not copy the whole link and type the text yourself? It must only save a few seconds at most. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I'm glad someone else said what I was thinking! wisems (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It enables a standard EL policy, many articles have a variety or links to CricInfo profiles, and many don't have Cricket Archive profiles (and some vice versa) it's generally neater, and for articles where both are available it saves the need for two points for what is essentially very similar stats. Both are leading sources of stats and should be included I feel, and I for one find them very useful. SGGH speak! 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It enables a standard EL policy, many articles have a variety or links to CricInfo profiles, and many don't have Cricket Archive profiles (and some vice versa) it's generally neater, and for articles where both are available it saves the need for two points for what is essentially very similar stats. Both are leading sources of stats and should be included I feel, and I for one find them very useful. SGGH speak! 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No argument from me that both should be included, but what am I saying is what is the point of a template that only saves a few seconds work? Are people really so lazy that they can't be bothered to copy the entire link from, say, CricketArchive and type the text themselves? Andrew nixon (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to use it! But it does give a standard display, which isn't always present.&mdash;MDCollins 23:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a switching parameter that you can invoke if the name of the cricketer is part of a disambiguation title? eg James Anderson (cricketer) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to confirm that a "name=James Anderson" in the template will fix that kind of issue. It certainly does with the previous template from which I took the code, it would presumably be an easy fix which I can implement if I ever get a new video card for my laptop in the post. SGGH speak! 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The ICL
Hi there... a kind reader has written a page outlining what sounds like some significant errors in the coverage of the Indian Cricket League. Could somebody with some knowledge about cricket (I have a feeling some of you here might meet that bill!) have a look and see what needs to be changed? Cheers, JNSQ (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is clearly not the best cricket article on Wikipedia. Why put the U.N. flag in the infobox? Why put the "current" squads? As for the content, it deserves to be better organized. However, to answer to the problem underlined by this reader, I find it globaly very difficult to understand the structure of the tourmaments and seasons of the ICL. ICL themselves are not clear at all. For exemple, they say that the last tourmament (won by the Badshahs) was the "20-20 Indian Championship". Last year, the winner of the "20-20 Indian Championship" were the Chennai Superstars. But they always says that the title holder were the Ahmedabad Rockets, whereas they have not won the previous "20-20 Indian Championship" but the "Edelweiss 20s Challenge". Add to that that they have added two teams in the middle of the first season and that they swap the order of the tourmaments between two seasons and it is very confusing. What I understand of the structure of the seasons is :
 * Season 1:
 * 20-20 Indian Championship (6 teams) > Superstars
 * ICL 50s (6 teams, only Indian players) > Superstars
 * Edelweiss 20s Challenge (8 teams) > Rockets
 * World Series (3 teams) > ICL India
 * Season 2:
 * 20-20 Domestic Tournament (7 teams, only Indian players, that's why Badshahs and Warriors didn't enter) > Superstars (? don't remember)
 * 20-20 Indian Championship (9 teams) > Badshahs
 * World Series (4 teams)
 * Again, why on earth did they say that the Rockets were the title holders before the last 20-20 Indian Championship, whereas the Superstars won the 2007 20-20 Indian Championship? They are quite confusing by themselves... OrangeKnight (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh
I had forgotten about this photograph, of Tresco leaving the ball, I think I'm going to call it "oh noes!" SGGH speak! 11:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did that ball castle him?  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! ) 00:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the photo title - TrescoDriving - out of the car park and back home again?&mdash;MDCollins 01:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The photo details don't include which ground that is. Is it Taunton? The background is horrible. --Dweller (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah - the "UNTON" is part of it - I think it's the England Women's logo (in a nice soft baby blue)...&mdash;MDCollins 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add it to the article. --Dweller (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added it here. We don't have much coverage anywhere in the obvious places on the "leave" shot. Incidentally, shall we rename that image to ? It's misleading - unless it was a drive (it doesn't look like it) --Dweller (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think my father named it without looking at what photo I had taken (either that or the ball is missing the stumps). We have another one of Tresco missing a catch in the slips, which you can probably find on my user page. Paints him in an unfair light! SGGH speak! 10:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)