Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 55

Beach cricket
The following articles turned up on New articles (Australia) recently: The events, while they include notable players are basically a big advertising campaign rather than a notable sporting event in any serious manner. I am tempted to send them to AfD, but thought that it is perhaps worth seeing if the participants here had a view. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2007 Beach Cricket Tri-Nations series
 * 2008 Beach Cricket Tri-Nations series
 * 2009 Beach Cricket Tri-Nations series
 * Do we have any folks on the Gold Coast to take photos for us? I forgot about it last year. It might be notable as a "TV event". LOL. Not as sport though.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 00:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hemant Punoo
This article has been deleted before, and was recreated today, but I can't find the original AfD, so suspect it may have been speedy deleted. Can one of our admins look into it? It's a clear non-notable player. The USA have played some List A cricket this year, but this player didn't play for them. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no deletion log on the player - nor am I able to find any AfD debate between Heman pathak and Hemanth Ramesha. Very peculiar. Bobo. 12:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange - I only noticed it because it showed up on my watchlist this morning as a new article, suggesting that I'd nominated it for deletion (speedy or otherwise) in the past. Either way, it's a clear case of lack of notability! Andrew nixon (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A Deletion review is now taking place, in which others are claiming that the WT:CRIC notability doesn't really have community endorsement, and while conceding that Punoo doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE he has sufficient news coverage to allow an article. I suggest we give some input as an overturn could set a precedent that kiboshes our notability guidelines.&mdash;MDCollins 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No chance of that at all. The deletion review generally has little to do with precedents or interpretation of guidelines, it's more about procedural issues.  In this case it's whether the A7 CSD criteria applies for questions of notability, which it doesn't - it only applies to a lack of assertion of notability.  But I do agree that there may be some players who are notable but haven't satisfied the cricket guidelines.  Doesn't matter, the guidelines will still work 90-99% of the time. The-Pope (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Cricinfo quiz error?
Christmas Quiz. I think there's an error...  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. The word "before" should be "after" in Q3. Your other query about Azhar and Key: they're presumably meant as illustrations of how you take the initial letters of answers to form the overall answer. Johnlp (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

All-England Eleven
Hello,

I just dropped a message on this article's talk page. I think that an separate article on Clarke's team is needed, because it has nothing in common with the other team for which the term has been used, and is obviously very important in cricket's history. What to you think about splitting it? How can we name both and have a desambiguation page? I think that Clarke's team is a lot more famous that the others. What do you think of All-England Eleven for Clarke's team, All-England Eleven (expression) for the others and a desambiguation page? OrangeKnight (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the difficulty of finding descriptive and non-confusing names that makes me unsure of whether a split would be a good idea. One possibility could be "William Clarke's All-England Eleven" and "All-England Elevens". Each of the two articles would need to start with a disambiguation screed pointing readers to the other article in case they had come to the wrong one. A split would also raise the question of which article the United All-England Eleven should fall under or whether there should be yet a third article. These problems incline me to think that it might be best to leave things as they are. JH (talk page) 21:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * United All-England Eleven has already a separated article! That's what prompted me, too, to suggest such a split. If United All-England have one, I think that All-England should have one... OrangeKnight (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. It shows how bad my memory is nowadays that I'd forgotten the existence of an article that I'd actually contributed to only about two weeks ago! JH (talk page) 21:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So a solution could be: a general article for all the "All-England" teams (all the different meanings of the subject), plus separate articles for notable teams (William Clarke's, United All-England, ...). But what about the titles? I think Clarke's is most notable. For the general article, the title could be All-England Eleven, All-England Elevens. For Clarke's team, William Clarke's All-England Eleven, All-England Eleven (assuming that it deserves most to be entitled so), or All-England Eleven (William Clarke's team), or All-England Eleven (professionnal team). Any suggestion? OrangeKnight (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with that. The general article could be based on the current All-England Eleven article, except that the reader would be referred to a separate article for the detailed info on Clarke's XI. For the article totles, I like All-England Elevens for the general article and William Clarke's All-England Eleven for Clarke's side. All-England Eleven could be a disambiguation page for the two. JH (talk page) 10:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone is prepared to write a history of All-England teams since 1739, I don't think the proposed generic article will ever amount to much except as an overview and a disambiguation to Clarke's team, the UEE, the USEE, the UNEE and any others that eventually attract articles. It makes sense to do it because Clarke's team should be a specific topic but, although the generic has a lot of potential mileage, how far will it actually go? --81.155.142.211 (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review
Bumped from above. I slightly disagree that a successful DRV would impact on our notability criteria. First, if recreated, it would be on grounds of inappropriate speedy, not notability. An AfD would follow. And second, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football. The community can decide that a particular sportsman not deemed notable by the WikiProject has accrued enough notability to pass WP:BIO irrespective of WP:ATHLETE and our take on it. --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dweller and The Pope (above) - I was mis-reading the comments slightly and can see that it is the 'speedy' which is being overturned, rather than the deletion itself.&mdash;MDCollins 14:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD now listed - Articles for deletion/Hemant Punoo --Dweller (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I recommend that as many WP:Cricket members vote at this AFD. This is an opportunity to clarify our notability guidelines with regards to youth internationals. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How many errors does it take for a source to stop being reliable??
I guess books by Roland Perry count as being reliable, as it's from a proper printing press and so forth, per the traditional standards. But this author is very careless and makes a lot of errors, even though some people think he is an expert and gave him awards, but a lot of other cricket historians think he is poor. I counted 18 errors in one span of 32 pages, which I document here in case by attack on this fellow and POV might raise a few BLP eyebrows :|. I'm sure people can find more as most here are more learned than I am. Also I note that he copied some errors from Jack Fingleton who is regarded as something of a doyen of cricket writing, which is a bit concerning. So does Perry still count as a RS, or at least an RS exempt when overruled by a better source. It's a pretty corny set of works, but I did use it because it was convenient. Or at least, we should write down a list of errors in books so we don't propagate misinformation.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 08:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling our Indian members
I'm guessing this is vandalism - please will you confirm/deny! --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cricket blogs
Blogging about cricket seems to be in vogue as current offerings include YellowMonkey's bananabucket and Jack on Cricket. Are there any more by WP:CRIC members? --81.155.142.211 (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the plug! Although it has now moved  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cricket literature
While contemplating how Matthew Hayden continues to be selected, I had a little think about what books about cricket would be suitable for articles. A little (entirely non-exhaustive) list of my own (Australian weighted of course) would include


 * On Top Down Under and Between Wickets by Ray Robinson (cricket writer)
 * The Ashes Crown the Year, Cricket Crisis and Brightly Fades the Don by Jack Fingleton
 * Farewell to Cricket by Donald Bradman
 * Calypso Cricket by Roland Fishman (not for any literary merit of course)

Some others from elsewhere may include What would be the inclusion criteria and should we create a to-do list? Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 10:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A Corner of a Foreign Field by Ramchandra Guha
 * Beyond a Boundary by C. L. R. James
 * I'd whack in Warney's Top 100, just because it created a stink, or was famous for being demented. I mean come on, putting B Lee ahead of Pollock/Donald/Waqar. And Watson ahead of Laxman? Just his Top 100 mates list mostly. Also may the Gilchrist book (perhaps) mainly for the Indian kerfuffle. "Four Chukkas to Australia" by Fingo about the 58/59 Aus/Eng series with Meckiff and Rorke etc sounds pretty interesting.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe Perry's books for being the worst of all time, here I wonder whether there are so many errors it isn't even RS anymore.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not altogether convinced that having articles for individual books won't be opening a can of worms. It's harder to demonstrate the notability of a book than of a person. If we do go ahead, I think that the criteria should include "staying power", ie the book should be of a quality and significance to suggest that it will still be well-known and widely read many years into the future. I think that Warne's book would fail on that basis; it's had a lot of publicity because it's controversial and by a famous cricketer, but I suspect that it will be forgotten in a year or two. (I haven't read it myself, so I could be doing it an injustice.) Most of the other books suggested seem to be good choices. Of books published in England, I'd suggest The Young Cricketer's Tutor and the Cricketers of my Time by John Nyren and Charles Cowden Clarke, as the first significant book on the game and still widely read, perhaps Neville Cardus's two volumes of autobiography and his first cricket book A Cricketer's Book, Ranji's Jubilee Book of Cricket (probably largely ghost written by CB Fry), maybe a book or two by Arlott, Robertson-Glasgow and Alan Ross, and some of the standard works of reference: the histories by Altham/Swanton and Rowland Bowen and perhaps by others, the Barclay's World of Cricket encyclopaedia, and E.W. Padwick's bibliography. (We already have an article on MCC Coaching manual. JH (talk page) 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is one of those things that will quickly catch fire and become ridiculous with the addition of the latest Twenty20 star's "autobiography". All sports books should be covered within an article about the author and that includes Beyond a Boundary.  The most significant work of the 19th century was neither Nyren nor Ranji but Haygarth's S&B; and that too should be described in Haygarth's article.
 * Incidentally, the fame of Nyren's book is merely that it was the first of its kind. It is a very poor work overall and, with a nod to the current RS topic re the likes of Perry, Nyren is most definitely non-RS and stands accused of plagiarism, prejudice and, like Corporal Jones, going off into the realms of fantasy. --86.146.83.184 (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability criteria
Some of our notability criteria are now occasionally being challenged at AfD, but not in the usual way, they are now being challenged as not being broad enough. So perhaps it's time to change them. I'm particularly interested in the area of notability for players from non-Test countries (as that's my area) and whether or not they can be classed as notable even if they've not played first-class or List A cricket.

They are after all international sportsmen, and whilst some people may incorrectly think that they're not "proper" international teams, they are. They may not meet our interpretation of WP:ATHLETE, but WP:Bio has the following as basic criteria for biography articles:


 * "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

And the following for all biographies is included under additional criteria:


 * "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

I think any cricketer who is included on either both Cricinfo and CricketArchive, or one of the "big" two plus mention in another reliable source (eg. a newspaper, the BBC, other cricket websites such as CricketEurope, etc.) meets these basic criteria for biographies and that we should feel free to create articles on them.

For example, I'd say that Nowroz Mangal, captain of Afghanistan has much more of a claim to notability than this player who played three first-class matches in 1803-1805, yet under our current guidelines, the former would have an article deleted whilst the second would have his article kept.

Could it be that in our desire to see that any first-class/List A cricketer is defended to the hilt we are forgetting about players who are making just as much of a contribution to the sport (possibly more) but at a lower statistical level. Various ICC statements recently have been speaking of the "primacy of international cricket" at all levels. I believe we should do the same.

Whilst I will not deny that any first-class/List A cricketer deserves notability, I think that we should expand our guidelines to include players who have played for a national side against another national side at senior level in both men's and women's cricket (ie. not youth cricket), providing that we can find two independent sources on the player. This wouldn't mean that we have to create articles for them all, but we wouldn't go deleting one if someone else does.

What do you think? Andrew nixon (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My own opinion is that anyone who has played for their country's full national side, whether male or female and whatever the type of match, should be viewed as notable. I'm not sure whether this should be extended to national U21 and U19 teams as well. JH (talk page) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Having just been through a bunch of AFDs on Australian rules footballers, with particular focus on those players drafted to a senior squad, but yet to make their senior debut, the outcomes have generally been that the top draft picks, who have biographical articles published in WP:RS survived, those who were only mentioned in lists or in passing were deleted, and the ones in the middle with some detail, but not much, were closed no consensus, which doesn't solve anything!


 * I think the key section seems to have hidden a bit from the basic criteria of WP:BIO - it is still listed in the "nutshell" heading - that is they need significant coverage.  IMHO, a line in a scorecard isn't significant.  A mention in the match report isn't significant.  A detailed analysis of a players innings/tactics/background/career (preferably with them referred to in the article heading) would probably be significant.  Having only a page on cricketarchive or cricinfo, given their very low standards of inclusion (which is entirely appropriate for their sites - they cover as much cricket as they can, from the ICC associates to Australian domestic 2nd XI and even some charity/exhibition matches), doesn't come anywhere near the requirements.  This strict adherance to the BIO requirements would probably rule out a heap of non-test players, especially those from outside of England.  But extending the rules to FC/List A (and their previous equivalents) is a very convienent/clear distinction for cricket, and I think moving the boundary far enough (Film/TV buffs don't get to make articles on everyone who ever appeared in a certain level or class of film or TV show, just the truly notable people) but I guess it could be argued along the "enduring record in their field" general criteria. I thought it used to say a "significant contribution", not a "widely recognised contribution"... but I guess the rules/criteria will always change around here.


 * Everyone who doesn't meet the WP:CRIN rules falls into the WP:GNG or the basic criteria of WP:BIO, which does override both WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRIN - something that some refuse to accept. I believe that Mr Mangal should only have his page deleted if it didn't have any reliable, significant, independant sources to support his notability.  I see these project specific notability guidelines, and even the additional criteria like WP:ATHLETE to be the bar for inclusion, rather than the rule for exclusion/deletion... which I think is the WP:GNG or Basic criteria of WP:BIO.  The-Pope (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You cannot compare Mangal with James Bennett as there was no international cricket in the early 19th century. The comparison must be with a modern Hampshire player who has not played at international level, say, James Tomlinson.
 * Bennett was a professional player who, albeit briefly, took part in a major sport at the highest standard attainable in his time. This means he easily qualifies as notable and the same applies to even earlier players.  Mangal and Tomlinson have not played cricket at the highest standard and so are not, all things being equal, on the same level of notability that Bennett was.
 * The issue is whether a non-first-class international player has the same notability as a non-international first-class player. Tomlinson is good enough to play in a major domestic competition and it could be assumed that, as no first-class team has signed him, Mangal is not good enough.  On the other hand, if Tomlinson took out Afghan citizenship, would he be an automatic selection by the Afghanistan team?  I understand Afghanistan is an ICC affiliate member and not even an associate member.  This means Mangal is on the same level of notability as, among others, the captains of Belize, Estonia, Mali, Oman, Surinam and Vanuatu.  He is less notable than the captains of the associate member teams, many of whom have at least played at List A standard.
 * It seems to me that notability must be considered not just in terms of perceived playing standards but in terms of national prestige. Clearly, it must be a great honour for Mangal to captain his country's international team against Qatar, even if the playing standard is no better than Undercliffe v. Lightcliffe in the Bradford League.  Do the notability criteria need to be expanded to allow for national status beyond playing standards?   --86.146.83.184 (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability help for a non-member
Hello all, I'm not a member of this WikiProject and as such am not aware of your notability requirements when it comes to cricketc clubs; or more specifically, amateur celebrity cricket clubs; or even more specifically, Allahakbarries, a cricket team founded by Peter Pan author JM Barrie, active from 1890 to 1913 which featured other such famous literary figures as AA Milne, EV Lucas, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle & PG Wodehouse...I'm not aware of their acheivements (if any) but based on this brief info of mine, do you reckon the team is notable enough for me to bother starting an article? Much obliged, GiantSnowman 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were, as I assume this is a low level club, I suspect its only claim to notability would be those who played for it, which I suspect may warrant more suitably a mention in the articles of those individuals over an article on the club. That's my 2 cents, I may be wrong. --SGGH speak! 20:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this book, with a foreword by Bradman, counts as "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent" per WP:N. IMO it counts as notable. Nev1 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for the advice, I've been bold and created the article; I've added some references to it from secondary sources, and a pretty substantial list of past players...if anyone else can find any sources to help secure notability, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, GiantSnowman 21:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * the book citations need page numbers :) --SGGH speak! 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas! The two book sources were copied exactly from existing Wikipedia articles, and so I don't actually know the page numbers...GiantSnowman 22:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Holkar
Back to categories again - I just created articles on two cricketers for Holkar - specifically S. Dotiwala and S. Kothane. I then find out that this team was the predecessor of Madhya Pradesh. I assume, however, that as a first-class team, it is fine for me to create a category on Holkar's cricketers, amongst whom, if I ever get around to it, include Mushtaq Ali, and CK Nayudu.

If anyone feels I've done the wrong thing, please feel free to empty the category, redirect the categories in the articles, and delete or mark the category for deletion.

Off to scribble out an article for M. Mukherjee now. Hope everyone is okay. Bobo. 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So was Holkar the official name of the Madhya Pradesh state for a time? If that's the case then Holkar players should probably go in the MP category just like Bombay players are included in Category:Mumbai cricketers. Jevansen (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. I always consider any teams with two different names to be - sort of - two completely different franchises. The Holkar players (presumably all of them, though I've never checked) never actually played for a "Madhya Pradesh" team, so if I were doing this alone, I would use the two different categories to separate the two franchises.


 * If anyone feels the articles should be placed in Category:Madhya Pradesh cricketers, please do so - I'm watching all the pages I created, so I should see when that happens. If necessary we can always open up a Categories for discussion page, where I'm happy to be overruled. Bobo. 03:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Holkar cricketers must be seperate. It is too important and different a team to be classified under Madhya Pradesh cricket team. Madhya Bharat cricketers may be put under Holkar, though Tintin 09:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarification, Tintin. I am yet to write any articles about Madhya Bharat cricketers (there are twelve redlinks remaining, if anyone wants to grab some) - though if I get around to it before anyone else I will be sure to categorize them accurately. Bobo. 11:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A useful tool for anti-vandalism on cricketer articles
It occurred to me that User:Sambot/players includes the highest profile (and hence most vandalised) cricketer articles. Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Sambot/players, therefore, is a useful anti-vandalism tool to look at from time to time. I caught two pieces of fairly long-standing vandalism just now. [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 01:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

ICC Hall of Fame
The ICC has marked its centenary by launching a Hall of Fame with 55 members. Bizarrely, the members are listed alphabeically by their first names. JH (talk page) 18:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, too, that WG should figure in a centenary that runs from 1909 to 2009. Johnlp (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Category? Article? Navbox? -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It should probably have an article, and the list may have relevance for our "key biographies" efforts. JH (talk page) 09:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They've spelt Bill O'Reilly with a lowercase "r" too. Why 55, why WG and why does it apparently stop around 1991 and thereby exclude players like Steve Waugh who retired several years ago? It's a mess, but what can be expected from the organisation that gave us the 2007 CWC? --86.134.63.220 (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly an article and a category. I wouldn't put a navbox: but then I've never liked them anyway, they seem to be just uglier versions of categories to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm starting an article at ICC Cricket Hall of Fame. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Category at Category:ICC Cricket Hall of Fame inductees. I wonder if someone, or someones, could add that cat to all inducted players? Thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather recentist. How is Trumper not in there?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He is the standout exclusion from an Australian viewpoint. Maybe I'm a chippy colonial but how an International Cricket Hall of Fame can be so heavy on English I don't quite understand. No doubt it will be more balanced in time. Other Australians who must be desperately unlucky to be overlooked include Geogre Giffen, Hugh Trumble, Monty Noble, Warwick Armstrong, Fred Spofforth, Clarrie Grimmett and Bill Ponsford. Unlucky West Indians include Wes Hall and George Headley. Underwood, Graveney and Statham are fine cricketers and deserve their places but to include them and leave out the above ... hmmm. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Headley is in the list. ICC's first press release said Ron Headley and then they hastily corrected it. Tintin 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Navjot Singh Sidhu
I'm not very happy with the political and criminal sections of this article, and some other bits, like the nicknames. I'd appreciate some expert eyes on it, and some watchlisting would be good, as he seems to attract controversy. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming problem
James Byrne, who captained Warwickshire and played 140 FC matches, was also famous as a rugby union footballer and was capped 17 times for England. Problem is that in rugby union sources he is known as Fred Byrne (his full name is James Frederick Byrne). Now when making pages for people of dual sports I've had problems like this before and just name the player by the sport they were more prominent in but this one is tough. Playing for your country should probably take precedence but he is a important figures in early Warwickshire cricket. Thoughts? Jevansen (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cricinfo isn't always very good with names (for example they had Harry Parks as Henry Parks, which he was never known as), so I'd go with Fred Byrne, perhaps with a redfirect from James Bryne. JH (talk page) 10:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I should have mentioned, CricketArchive uses James Byrne as well. Jevansen (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pietersen and Moores
Since it's not been confirmed by the ECB whether either has resigned, is it ok to remove statements of resignation etc from their respective articles? Nev1 (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reworded both articles. bigissue (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Has been confirmed now, might as well roll back? --SGGH speak! 15:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles are now up to date, although we'll have to be careful not to allow POV to slip in. The Pietersen article mentioned that he had "finally resigned when he was given the ultimatum by the ECB that either you resign or you are going to be sacked", reported as fact when it appears to be Agnew's musings. Nev1 (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

hopefully some useful images
I've uploaded some images to commons which I hope might be quite useful - though I could do with a hand identifying a few folk! The 'meta' information on the image is accurate, so that might help a bit! The images are pretty hi-res, and you can see what I thought was a reasonable crop / zoom over at Mitchell Johnson, and on the right - hopefully there's a few more identifiable people in here, and maybe some action shots which might illustrate a batting article or two? The trivia / titbits fans out there may be interested to see the image of Michael Clarke scoring his first century at the SCG (with bales in the air!) - and Duminy making his debut, and taking his first wicket! I'll gnome away adding and improving these over the next little while too, but all should feel free to have a play themselves! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Clarke to me. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above - I'm thinking this is Hussey, but wouldn't mind confirmation? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as sure as the one above, but certainly appears to be Hussey. I can't think who else it would be. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You definitely talk just like Hassett and his poker face. Where is my spiked roller?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

< Okey dokey - here's a rogues gallery of some 'closeups' of players from the SCG - I'll add the couple that I have identified easily to their articles, any any feedback or assistance would be great too! (feel free to copy the gallery to a subpage if you feel it clutters this page up too) Privatemusings (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

David Warner (cricketer)
Is it me or are they going a bit over the top with him.http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ausvrsa2008_09/content/current/story/386115.html He had a good debut but so did the new zealand player who made a centuary a few days ago on debut not as much good words to say about him though. Very short sighted in my opinion. A random statement i know i just wanted to know your thoughts. Thanks (read second/third paragraph to know what i mean).02blythed (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as the wiki article doesn' do likewise it doesn't matter what opinion pieces say. And after the summer we've had, forgive us for some excited optimism!The-Pope (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi I thought I would bring it to the attention of the wikiproject as we help improve cricket coverage but also like cricket so thought i would mention it on this page. Looking forward to beating the aussies in the summer cannot wait touch wood LOL02blythed (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's utter hyperbole, the Aussies are desperate for the next Hayden, hoping he'll appear in time to retain the Ashes ;-) Nev1 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They should pick Hughes. If Warner was good enough he would already be playing FC, although if he's getting annoyed waiting there, he can just move to a weaker state.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kathiawar
I have it on my to-do list to make a list of Kathiawar cricketers, from their seven matches in the Ranji Trophy in the late 1940s. When I categorize these, should I categorize as Category:Kathiawar cricketers - or to Category:Saurashtra cricketers, as this is where the link to Kathiawar cricket team gets redirected?

Hope everyone is doing fine. Bobo. 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Duminy
Should his article be at Jean-Paul Duminy or JP Duminy, along the lines of AB de Villiers. In the press and on the TV and radio coverage over the past series in Australia "JP" was almost exclusively used, Jean Paul rarely if ever. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 08:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He's always known as JP. Nick mallory (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On that basis, is there any objection to the move? If none appears in the next day I will move to JP Duminy. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. --SGGH speak! 11:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Now at JP Duminy -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Generalising cricket articles
I mentioned before the issue of trying to generalise some biographical articles that have been written entirely from a cricket perspective. I have been working through dead Derbyshire players (up to C so far) to update their articles, if possible, with wider bio detail and to make them into more general wiki articles. A lot of hard work goes into creating cricket articles but I hope you will not mind if I make a few observations and suggestions that would help.

Birth and death dates are often in American date format and are wikilinked which is now deprecated. (A BOT "date delinker" occasionally comes and sorts out both these faults). Full names are frequently not provided although they are usually available on the original source - apart from being needed for completeness, these make google etc searches so much easier. It is easier to add to a biography if life events are presented chronologically - unfortunately many articles read such as "He was born at A and died at B. He first played for C in x year. Ten years earlier he played a minor counties match for D". There is a lot of creative assumption - for example if he stopped playing one year it could be misleading to say he was "dropped" unless there are records to prove it - he may have moved or chosen to do something else (as sometime emerges from more bio information). On the other hand if he played for Oxford or Cambridge he must have been educated there (bio fact) and not just made an odd cricket career choice. Sometimes the text seems a bit OTT - an innings defeat does not have to be "crushing".

By way of example, here are a selection of Derbyshire cricketers whom I found, and who did more than just swing a bat - Geoffrey Bell (cricketer), Billy Bestwick, Frank Bingham, Lionel Blaxland, Walter Boden and George Buckston. Thanks anyway for opening the batting on these articles - Regards Motmit (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets not forget to add infoboxes too :) --SGGH speak! 21:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A first paragraph that covers the salient points – birth date and place, death date and place, what they did and for whom – is always going to be useful. Then, I agree, it should be mostly chronological. But removing the death date to the far end is, in my view, irritating. Johnlp (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm thinking about it, Motmit, I will once again open the opportunity for you to look at User:Bobo192/Derbyshire redlinks, where there are a sensible number of names that I'm certain you can look at some. Bobo. 00:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bobo - I keep looking at the Derbs redlinks, (in fact it's on my WL) but they seem to stay red. With regard to the lead para, as I understand it, the purpose of this is to identify uniquely the subject (including the vital dates for people), and to declare why the article is notable, leaving details such as where born, parents and where died in the body of the article. Regards Motmit (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD
Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_13  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 08:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Street cricket
Street cricket is played in many nations, not just India. Does anyone feel like going through the article and making it less geographically specific? For instance, in Australia, street cricket is extremely common; the various rules used, though, are different from the Indian ones. (For instance, breaking a window or hitting the ball into anyone else's property is "six and out and fetch the ball" - in other words, you score six, but you have to go and apologize to the owner.) Reworking the list of terms into a list of optional rules would also be a great help. Anyone feel like taking on the task? I'm not a member of WP:CRIC btw, I just saw the article and thought it could do with a little TLC from someone who knows the subject better than I do (which isn't difficult - I'm hardly an expert on cricket!). Rosuav (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs more of a global view but the problem with all such informal sports is the lack of verifiable information and reliable sources. The rich folklore of street and backyard cricket in Australia (and I assume elsewhere) has been orally transmitted down the generations, but I have not heard of any systematic recording. Items such as "six and out", "automatic wicky", "tippedy run", "no LB", "last man gets his tucker" etc. are part of many Australian's childhood (certainly part of mine), but there is no source to support them (that I know of). -- Mattinbgn\talk

It's an interesting example of convergent social evolution though. The 'rules' of 'six and out' if you hit it into a neighbouring garden, no LBWs because they're impossible to adjudicate unless you're blatantly not playing a shot and 'automatic wicket keeper' e.g. if you edge it into the wall behind you you're out and 'tip and run' to keep the game moving must have been 'invented' a million times by kids over the years. What 'last man gets his tucker' means I've no idea though. Nick mallory (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The last man in does not need a partner and gets to continue batting on his own. Otherwise the last man in doesn't get much of a go if his partner gets out early. The quid pro quo of that is that he can be run out at either end when making a run. Makes for very interesting adjudication though!
 * I dimly remember this being called "last man stand(s)" at my (UK) primary school. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, last man stands is what we called it too. Nick mallory (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, most of the games of street cticket I played in in England only had about six or so people playing. So we generally had only one batsman at a time, as everyone else was needed for fielding. JH (talk page) 18:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting read, but to me doesn't quite seem notable and cries out as WP:OR. It is probably unverifiable in any case. While there are some external links to cricket in the sub-continent, I'm just not sure. Can somebody reassure me? I was just thinking that surely Street football doesn't have an article, but even that is there, with a section on Headers and Volleys... Maybe I'm just being OTT. What would come next? Garden rugby? Street "throwing a ball onto the opposite kerb to try and make it bounce back?"!&mdash;MDCollins 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Street cricket is not notable, if you define notable as meeting WP:N. If the article does not meet WP:N then it probably does not have a place here at Wikipedia, given that we do not accept original research. On the other hand, an activity particpated in by millions of children around the world is surely notable in the wider sense. Folk games (like street cricket, hopscotch, downball, British bulldogs etc.) are just another type of folklore, like folk songs (in the original meaning, not the Bob Dylan meaning), folk rhymes, folk tales and such seems to me to be a valid research subject and a valid topic for inclusion here. If there were independent reliable sources with information on the topic I am all for having an article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Backyard cricket has an article, entirely consisting of OR. A merge is probably due although if you remove the OR from both there is nothing left! -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And French cricket! -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd merge the lot! and cut the waffle. I'd be happy if there was the possibility of the reliable sources etc.&mdash;MDCollins 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Invincibles drive and the template again
As I managed to write 1948 Ashes series in great detail, I have now ended up overgrowing it at
 * First Test, 1948 Ashes series
 * Second Test, 1948 Ashes series
 * Third Test, 1948 Ashes series
 * Fourth Test, 1948 Ashes series
 * Fifth Test, 1948 Ashes series

and then all the match details ended up recycled in player articles that got too big so I ended up with
 * 1) Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 2) Bill Brown with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 3) Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 4) Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 5) Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 6) Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 7) Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 8) Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 9) Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 10) Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 11) Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 12) Ian Johnson with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 13) Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 14) Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 15) Arthur Morris with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 16) Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * 17) Bill Johnston with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Should the Test and in-depth tour-recap-by players be manoevred into the template somehow?

Yes and the Inivincibles drive should be pretty close now. Rise up, fellow cricket tragics!  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I recall MOS not liking the bold text in an article lead to be wikilinked, but not sure what is the next best solution. You have written loads :O SGGH speak! 10:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All 17 bios are now clogging up GA.... YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Template not updating?
I've added the player by tour articles to the template and transcluded it onto the those articles, however, on the old articles (the overall bio articles) it won't show the new version of the template. How long does this take?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you tried a purge or a null edit on the affected pages? -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Players in Pakistani domestic cricket by team
Below follows a list of what I believe would be categories for every team to play Pakistani domestic first-class cricket.

Various questions:
 * Should players for the B teams be categorized separately, and if not, how do we solve this? eg, Punjab B, Sind A, Sind B, Rawalpindi A, Rawalpindi B, etc.
 * Are there any of these categories which obviously shouldn't exist?

Any thoughts would be welcome - I know what I would do personally, but no doubt that would fly in the face of consensus and/or sensible behaviour... Bobo. 03:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd put the B team players in the main category. Combined Services is not the same team that played first-class cricket in England. Is there a case for putting East Pakistan cricketers as a subcategory of Bangladesh cricketers? Andrew nixon (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So, Category:Combined Services (Pakistan) cricketers, or something similar? That and, East Pakistan should perhaps only refer to the domestic cricketers for the team, assuming not all of them are, or would be, Bangladeshi? 84.69.25.252 (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC) (Bobo, not signed in)


 * The Railways category above is the Indian team, the Pakistan one is at Category:Pakistan Railways cricketers, the Hyderabad category is also the Indian version. The redlink Pakistan AC is presumably Category:Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers. --Jpeeling (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ach, I forgot to pipe it through to Pakistan Automobiles Corporation, you're right, Jp. I've fixed the links above. So, Category:Pakistan Railways cricketers, Category:Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers. Cheers. Bobo. 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

why do so many people think that Hayden is so great?
Is it just me or everyone going over the top saying he is one of the all time greats and backslapping too much! Ponting even suggested he was the best opener of all time. Better than Hutton or Gavaskar? No way and they had much nastier bowlers and pitches to play on, and no BAN/ZIM either. No I'm not Neil Harvey!  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't take Ponting's opinion too seriously ... the same bloke has claimed Shane Warne is Australia's greatest ever cricketer. No, not bowler, cricketer! Sorry Don. A true cricket history buff is Mr Ponting. Jevansen (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Two Australians in Wisden's five cricketers of the century; Bradman nominated fifty years after his retirment, Warne nominated halfway through his career. Reasonable call by Ponting.59.101.238.75 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought Ponting said he was the greatest Australian opener of all time, which is a more reasonable claim, as you've produced bucketsful of astonishing middle order batsmen, but surprisingly few openers on such a level. Statistically, his numbers are pretty good, but I'd agree that if Ponting was claiming he was the best ever from anywhere in the world, he's making himself a buffoon. --Dweller (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When Ponting was asked if he was Australia's best opener ever, he said: "I don't think there is any doubt about that, you can even look back through the history books of the game and try and see if there has ever been a better opening batsman in the game, let alone Australia." So he probably was suggesting Hayden's the greatest opener ever although the quote as I read it is rather noncommittal, you can look through the history books for a better one. *and you'll find loads* --Jpeeling (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * btw, amusingly, if you remove his performances against Bangladesh, Hayden's average climbs! But not so for Zimbabwe, against whom he averaged, erm, 250. You might be surprised how "poorly" he did against a series of weak England teams; this fascinating article may hold the answer. --Dweller (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually his record is poor in England rather than against England, he averaged 56.81 in the two home Ashes he played. Also I wouldn't describe either of the 2001 or 2005 England teams he had a poor record against as weak. --Jpeeling (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The 2005 bowling attack was England's strongest in years. While the 2001 bowlers may not have been weak, but they didn't play to their potential, of the front-line bowlers only Alex Tudor took his wickets at less than 30, and he didn't have a long Test career. It looks like Hayden has problems against swing bowling in general, as he's struggled in New Zealand too (34.5 in England from 10 Tests, 28.14 in New Zealand from 4). Nev1 (talk)

I don't see anything surprising in Ponting's comment. Everytime a modern good or great retire, there are people to describe him as one of the best/as the best... Don't worry about that... OrangeKnight (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If Ponting was asked about his former team-mate and close friend "Do you think he is the best opener in Australian Test history?" on the day of his retirement, how else is he supposed to answer and not seem like a party-pooper? If Ponting had said, "Yeah, Haydos has a good statistical record but had a weakness against the swinging ball, and besides, pace bowling stocks were at an historic low", he (Ponting) would have been castigated as damning with faint praise. At retirements, cricket or otherwise, large amounts of praise are dished out, out of politeness and respect, that doesn't always hold up over time or necessarily constitute the deeper position held by the person doing the praising. It was Hayden's day, Ponting was being polite. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan national cricket team
I've just done a major rewrite of what's become a real mess of an Afghanistan national cricket team article. This article tends to attract a lot of IP edits that add templates for every single result, unsourced content, poorly written content, etc, etc. Not vandalism in the true sense of the word, but annoying nonetheless. Therefore, I'd appreciate it if people could keep an eye on it, especially when the WCL Division Three tournament starts next weekend, when the article will no doubt attract more of the aforementioned annoying stuff. Thanks! Andrew nixon (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland about Irish sporting flags which is related to this project can you please have a look Gnevin (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WI unt Ash
Is anyone going to the Eng v WI and/or Ashes Tests? Photos opportunities! (Boycott??!?!?) SGGH speak! 12:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be at the Lord's Test, health permitting. I'll take a camera and see what I can do, but I'm no David Bailey. --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can get an image of Boycott, whatever kind, then perhaps we can get him to FA SGGH speak! 15:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried emailing him, through TMS, and asking for him to release a pic to OTRS? I had some joy emailing Aggers last summer on a Wikipedia-related issue. If you don't get any joy with that, a bit nearer the time, I'll email him and see if I can arrange to meet him for a 10 second photoshoot. --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Email tms at sign bbc.co.uk and use an FAO in the subject line - that's how I reached Aggers. --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did try sometime ago and got no response :( SGGH speak! 16:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

notablity question
Hello everyone, I have seen the individual player articles on the 1948 ashes tour and was wondering if the notablity of this has been discussed. I believe that they are but was wondering how far this could go or should go. For example does graeme smith in the recent australia tour deserve an article for example due to his succesful tour. We could get 10s or 100s of similar articles like this and believe we should get notablity guidelines for this so everyone is clear and thought it would be good to discuss it now. Ideas welcome. Thanks.02blythed (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If a person is covered non-trivially by multiple reliable sources, then they are notable, according to Wikipedia guidelines. For cricket, the existence of two enormous online information sources means that just about any cricketer who has played first-class or list-A will meet the guidelines. Any player who was the subject of an (auto)biography definitely qualifies, and the same would go if a book was published on a tour they took part in. As an example, Ron Hamence has four sources besides cricinfo and cricketarchive, so no problems with notability. dramatic (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if you know what I meant. I know that all first class cricketers etc are notable but is someones performance in a particlur series notable e.g. don bradman in 1948 ashes series artcile is this notable. I believe it is but how far does this go e.g. shakib al hasan in sri lanka series just gone. he had a good series why not or why if the case may be. I believe that the recent invincible articles put up for GA are notable but how far does it go. Suggesions please as this needs to be discussed. Sorry if i did not make my self clear. 02blythed (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I share your reservations. I applaud the enthusiasm, but I wonder if things are getting a little out of hand. An example is Keith Miller, who now has his own category, with no fewer than eight articles in it. JH (talk page) 10:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the RSA tour consisted of three Tests and one warm-up. The reason why I started on these was because Miller got too long and I had to fork and I ended up with a pile of articles on all the Tests, so I decided to take out the relevant personal bits and put them together for each of the players. The reason for not just whacking the big details in the main article would be undue weight and article bloat, given that detailed in-depth coverage of all the other seasons in the player's career has not been provided for proportioning and that the article would balloon way past 100kb prose if this was done.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion of some of these issues here that you may want to join (as noted above by User:YellowMonkey). Johnlp (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the CfD discussion has partially morphed into a de facto notability discussion on the articles rather than discussion of the desirability of the categories. If editors feel the articles do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines or are otherwise not in keeping with the scope of the project, AfD is the place to find consensus, not CfD. Certainly CfD could not find its arse with both hands, let alone consensus.

The shorter answer to the question above in my opinion is: If reliable sources exist to support a sub-article and the sub-article is too large to include comfortably as a section in the main article, then there is no impediment either in policy or in practice to the creation of as many sub-articles as needed. Surely, depth of coverage is a positive for Wikipedia, provided it remains encyclopedic in nature rather than mere reportage. Splitting is routine and normally not controversial. I am not sure why this case is different.

Some editors enjoy working in the details, some enjoy working with the more general articles and surely there is rooms for both. As for having 100s of similar articles, we have over 2.7 million now, a couple of extra hundred cricket biography section articles won't make a major difference. Besides, Wikipedia is not paper, right? -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt is right: the discussion at CfD should be about the categories, not about the articles. There are lots of precedents for splitting over-heavy articles into less heavy chunks, with due reference back to an original and complete (but much less detailed in some aspects) article. But my view is that articles have to reach a certain bulk before this is done, and the question may be whether all the articles on the 1948 Invincibles players should receive that treatment, or whether just those where there is so much to say that a single overall article would be long to an out-of-the-ordinary degree. I can see, for instance, Bradman and Miller demanding several sub-articles; Harvey, Hassett, Lindwall and Morris too and probably others. The lesser players on that tour I'm less convinced about sectional articles, but I'm willing to be at least swayed by the quality of the articles, which seems to be very high and is excellent work. Categories is a different, though related discussion. Johnlp (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For some of the Invincibles with shorter careers, like Toshack, I could have added just put the in-depth 1948 section in the main article, but that would have created an WP:UNDUE problem, and the same with Hamence, Saggers, Ring etc, because the 1948 section would take up a disproportionate amount of text and would lead to undue problems because for the rest of their career, all matches are not accounted for. If there was no FT drive and no need to worry about FA/GA then stuffing it all in one article regardless of undue isnt a problem.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)