Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 72

Gender specification in articles
Members of this project may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Australia national basketball team which proposes a rename of Australia national cricket team. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have chipped in with a reminder that cricket has no rules that prevent women from playing for the "men's" national sides. Andrew nixon (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nathan Lyon
The article on Australian cricketer Nathan Lyon could do with some work now that he's received a Test call-up. This is quite a story - going from playing district cricket to Test cricket in six months... Hack (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to see Australia slowly working their way through all the spinners in Australia.... maybe my old school friend living in Melbourne might have a call up one of these days!!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did have a chuckle last night when I saw this announced during the CB40 match. From groundskeeper to the next Shane Warne!  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Two things
Thanks --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is Test matches in England in 2005 an unnecessary fork of two tour articles?
 * 2) Where will I find the list article that outlines England's results in Test series in chronological order? Curently can't find it, but surely...
 * 1. Yes, a copy and paste from the two tour articles. Not needed IMO. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree that it's not needed too.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a source
I'm looking for a reliable source that gives me a list of women's Test cricketers from all the 10 women's Test playing teams (could be consolidated or individual team lists), I need something that gives me the total no of players who have played for that team. Searches on CI and CA have not yielded anything (we of course have a few FLs on the topic, but then they can't be used as sources for another article). Can anyone help? This is for an additional table (comparing no of players, centurions etc from different teams) that I plan to insert at List of centuries in women's Test cricket. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you go into the statistics on CA for women's test cricket, then go into each individual country, there is a section for the batting and fielding of all players. Andrew nixon (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I somehow missed that and used only the search and team oracle options. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor counties cricketers
Just a quick update on my project to get an article for all the cricketers who played List A for a Minor county. In recent weeks I have completed Staffordshire, Wales Minor Counties and earlier on Suffolk. That leaves me with 113 to go! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jumped the gun there, as I've found 4 Suffolk players without articles! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How did I miss them?! *slaps self* Well played. Bobo. 23:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just done Russell Green, so that's them all done. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

J. Jackson (Leicestershire cricketer)
The J. Jackson (Leicestershire cricketer) article was PRODded as not meeting WP:CRIN. However, reading the article, CRIN is met as it is claimed that he played in 3 major cricket matches. An editor with access to The Times online archive may be able to expand the article. Mjroots (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I PRODed it on the basis that the "major matches" are somewhat dubious, with CA edging toward the player having played in no major matches. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the three matches he played in are mentioned in The Times that I can see on a quick search. He appears to have been remarkably unsuccessful: batted six times, not a single run (though not out twice). If User:BlackJack were here, he might well produce some evidence to contest the PROD, but I can't see any. Jackson won't exactly be difficult to recreate if in time one or more of his matches is deemed "major" by CA or ACS or whoever decides these things. Johnlp (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I de-prodded in good faith, based on what CRIN said and what was claimed in the article. As he was a Leicestershire player, local newspapers of the period may hold the key. A book source is also given in the article. I've no objection to an AfD being raised, but I won't be participating if one is. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

citation needed info
I added to Retired out as there was no source that "Only two batsmen have retired out in an international cricket Test match" Bulwersator (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ... okay. Fixed. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

English players to do
Bobo192 has helpfully given the number of English cricketers left to do of the first-class counties: According to my lists - may be more to add from seasons after 2004-5 or thereabouts:


 * Essex - 178
 * Glam - 61
 * Gloucs - 303
 * Kent - 372
 * Lancs - 339
 * Leics - 229
 * Middx. - 363
 * Nhants - 223
 * Notts - 299
 * Surrey - 353
 * Sussex - 442
 * Warks - 259

A few players may be missing having made their debuts since the lists were compiled, but there's roughly 3,400 to go! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured List - Test Match hat-tricks
I've put a question on the talk page of this article about one of the sections of the list. Additional input is appreicated. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Source
Can anybody find a source for the cause of death for James Bradshaw? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To save anyone else looking there, neither the 1939 nor the 1940 Wisden seems to have an obituary for him, at least not as recorded by Cricinfo. JH (talk page) 17:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tried my luck there, and yep nothing :( Google didn't seem to bring up much either. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, is this James Bradshaw you're after, or his cousin Walter? Johnlp (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry my mistake Johnlp, James not Walter, apologies! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No mention that I can find in The Times. Johnlp (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian Norman Mitchell
I'm creating the article on this Gloucestershire cricketer who died in June of this year, I've found an obituary entry, but it's on The Times. Has anybody got full access to view it? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only have access to pre-1985 (through local library). Unwilling under present circs to give Mr Murdoch any more of my money! Johnlp (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise, be damned if I'll give any money to that man! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Two articles up for deletion
The first one is this (!) There is no doubt it is/will be notable, but it led me to a further thought. The project's notability guide mentions players and clubs, but not tours. Maybe this hole should be plugged. And there's also this one to have a look at too... ;-)  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Over to you, Aggers
Hi. TRM and I are trying to push Agnew's article to FA. Does anyone have a copy of his autobiography? Any edition would be great, but preferably the 2003 one. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not half bad
For those of you on facebook, head over to the Afghanistan Cricket Board page and view the pictures of their new stadium, it isn't half bad, although the outfield and wicket looks like it needs some more perfecting from the groundstaff. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think their claims of the capacity are a little suspect though... Andrew nixon (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How many have they claimed? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen anywhere between 60,000 and 80,000. Andrew nixon (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Packed in like sardines! I'd say no more than 25,000 tops. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture
Has anyone got any decent pictures of Michael Carberry? My one from Lord's in 2009 doesn't show his face :( AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Major cricket
Good morning. Further to the discussion above, I have nominated major cricket for deletion. I intended to place a notice on the page of the original editor but he has evidently quit the site so I feel that I should place it here instead, if that is in order. Please use the link if you wish to take part in the discussion. -- Mike (chat) 08:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If my calculations are correct...
Today (August 6) was Norman Gordon's one hundredth birthday! Congratulations to the first Test cricketer to make his century! Bobo. 23:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and he's Lucille Ball's twin! Excellent. Johnlp (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Famous quotes from people born on August 6, 1911 - near to the top of a Google search of that date. Why are there no famous Norman Gordon quotes? ;) Bobo. 17:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Zimbabwe :)
Congratulations to Zimbabwe, won their first match on their return to Test cricket (albeit against Bangladesh). Relevant articles may need updating. IgnorantArmies?! 11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There exists a superior team out there, that for some reason the ICC won't allow to join their club :( AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Concern about "first-class status" and notability
The discussion above and on a deletion page about the 18th century player Jackson gives rise to a concern that the Cricket Archive database appears to be seen as a kind of oracle for determining which matches, clubs and players are "notable" on the basis of those matches it unofficially rates "first-class". These begin way, way back in 1772! I have always understood that first-class cricket (leaving aside its official ICC definition in 1947) is deemed to have begun in 1864 when overarm bowling was legalised but, obviously enough, only for 11-a-side two innings games of three or more days duration. Hence limited overs and Twenty20 are not first-class because their specific rules make them significantly different forms; and this must equally apply to early matches played when underarm bowling was universal. However, while a Twenty20 match involving two County Championship teams is a "major match" now, so were underarm matches involving leading teams before 1864.

I fail to see how Cricket Archive can make a controversial "decision" that underarm matches have the same status as overarm matches and not be challenged. Surely other sources should be consulted to establish notability? I entirely agree with one editor's view that "Cricket Archive's lack of mention (of Jackson) is not a conclusive reason for deletion", providing other sources are cited which do attest his notability. In Jackson's case, that is so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the key source for matches played to about 1870 is Scores and Biographies and thereafter it is Wisden. I'd have thought these publications would therefore be used to determine notability of a given match or player, while Cricket Archive is useful for providing easy access to the scorecard information. I have access to a copy of Roy Webber's 1951 publication, "Playfair Cricket Records". In his introduction, he states that matches prior to 1864 cannot be regarded as first-class due to the "general weakness" of cricket then compared with its subsequent development (e.g., rudimentary ad hoc organisation, few clubs, rules still evolving, etc.) and the fact that scorecards were largely incomplete, if not actually missing (one of the first-class cricket articles says a large collection of unique scorecards was lost in a fire at Lord's in the 1820s). In addition, I have in my collection a booklet called "A guide to first-class cricket matches played in the British Isles". This was published in 1982 by a statistical club and it unequivocally states that first-class cricket began in 1864, with several county clubs and a few other teams being given the accolade from that date. Certainly, as a lifelong Yorkshire follower, I have always understood that we became "first-class" in 1864, the year after foundation. Cricket Archive has every right to put forward an alternate view but its presence on the internet does not infer a right to overrule the views of other sources (and I imagine Cricket Archive gathered all its data from those other sources). Surely Wikipedia must give precedence to source books over internet sites?

Privately, I think the term "first-class cricket" is a misnomer that of itself is half the problem. Only Test cricket can literally be termed first-class. The term is most commonly used in connection with competitions like the County Championship and it would be better if it had a more descriptive name like "three day cricket".

I believe the project group needs to look at its coverage of major cricket, first-class cricket and ancillary articles as I believe an incorrect "rule" is being implied that Cricket Archive is the deciding factor in questions of player notability. I certainly think the admins should be asked to revise WP:CRIN to provide clarity about the different forms of major cricket. On that point, I would question the validity of an article called major cricket as it is not an official term and the article in its present form seems outdated and misleading; in fact, I think it breaches the rule about original research. -- Mike (chat) 16:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The first-class matches listed on CricketArchive are those considered to be first-class by the association of Cricket Statisticians. Their list is also the list behind Cricinfo's statistical database and is (with the exception of the South African rebel "Tests") considered to be official by the ICC. CricketArchive has the benefit of being a freely available and easily referenced database. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a source that confirms ICC acceptance of the list as official or are you only referring to matches since 1947? -- Mike (chat) 16:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to your comment 'Only Test cricket can literally be termed first-class.' - will you be complaining to WP:BASEBALL about their World Series not including most of the world? WP:COMMONNAME might be useful reading. We're here to reflect reality, not correct it.  WP:CRIN is reflective of the level of cricket that we can assume that somewhere, at some time (maybe not googleable) there is significant coverage of most, if not all players at that level.  We use databases like cricketarchive to only prove if a player reaches that level, not to prove that they've received significant coverage. I have no idea about the notability of cricket in previous centuries, but those who do have made their choices and I'm happy to trust them. The-Pope (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to be sarcastic which is childish. I am not criticising anyone, merely asking a pertinent question. Also, you have missed my point. -- Mike (chat) 17:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User:BlackJack would be better equipped to answer this than I am, but the gist of it is, as Andrew says, that the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians has laboured over many years to extend the list of major cricket matches backwards. Its initial work took it back from the rather arbitrary 1864 date of Webber (which Webber himself refuted in a later work) to an equally arbitrary 1801; subsequently it's been going back further. None of this work is "official" in that it is not "approved" by any body such as ICC. It is, however, done by people who know an awful lot about these things and their decisions are based on the type of match, the calibre of the cricketers, the degree of contemporary reporting and other factors, and any decisions about individual matches are reached by consensus. There are still areas of dispute (see the article Variations in first-class cricket statistics) and some anomalies (a few 12-a-side games are counted as first-class), but the ACS work is pretty much accepted everywhere. In that Cricketarchive is the most accessible source that adheres to the ACS decisions on individual matches, its "opinion" is a convenient and cite-able way of verifying claims of notability for individual players and games. "Major cricket" encompasses first-class and List A cricket plus Twenty20; perversely the ICC officially accepts the ACS decisions on List A games, but has no view on the ACS work on first-class games. I think you're wrong to see only Test cricket as "first-class", and wrong too to see under-arm or round-arm bowling as a significant factor in whether players or matches should be judged as "major" or "first-class". Under-arm bowling has been employed in Test cricket: not just the Trevor Chappell incident, but as front-line bowling by George Simpson-Hayward and a few others. Johnlp (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Johnlp, for this informative answer. I accept what you say about ACSH and I understand that ICC might recognise its limited overs classification, as that only dates back to about 1963, but "first-class" is another matter entirely. Let me try and re-phrase my concern. Cricket Archive has reached a conclusion about all pre-1864 matches which have a scorecard, even though the card may be incomplete, and has equated many with matches from the later period when it is much easier to be certain about status. My real concern, which I seem not to have clarified above, is that if Cricket Archive has decided against first-class status in a particular match (e.g., MCC against Thursday's Club or Leicestershire v Nottingham), should Wikipedia refute "notability" in terms of those matches when an earlier source (one which Cricket Archive itself must be heavily reliant upon) equates that match with others that Cricket Archive do now consider first-class?
 * In the case of Jackson, although the information is sparse, the editor has cited Haygarth as a source and I would argue that the inclusion of these matches in Haygarth's book do confer notability, regardless of Cricket Archive's retrospective assessment of them. The point is that Haygarth was an expert in his field and his views must be taken into account when deciding if an article about a player he recognised should be retained or deleted. If you follow the links to The Thursday Club, Nottingham Cricket Club and Leicestershire and Rutland Cricket Club you find evidence of contemporary notability which exists without the accolade of a 21st century website. I would agree that Cricket Archive should provide a "rule of thumb" in the absence of any other source material but, if an editor finds additional information in Haygarth or another reputable book, then notability should be attested by that evidence. Please ask if I have still not made myself clear.
 * I think I complicated my first post because my reading has led me to raise additional questions and I think I can encapsulate these into a concern about the major cricket article, especially as this appears to be driving the guidelines set out in WP:CRIN. I think that article should be rewritten from a different perspective or, better still, removed because it is original research about a term that has only colloquial usage at best; and I believe the admins should be asked to look again at WP:CRIN, so can you advise me who to contact about that? Thank you again. -- Mike (chat) 07:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My own view is that any match listed by CA as "first-class" (and previously as "major", before they recently stopped using the term)) is automatically notable, but that the converse does not apply. I.e. if CA doesn't list the match as fc/major it does not automatically mean that it is not notable, and such matches need to be considered on their merits. For example, Eton v Harrow is clearly notable. Unfortunately for early matches an element of subjectivity is unavoidable in many cases, but my own inclination would be to say that if in doubt then include it. One could argue that is an 18th century match's full scorecard has been preserved - which is pretty rare - and appears on CA and/or Haygarth, then that in itself is strong evidence of notability. JH (talk page) 09:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I outlined my reservations about Haygarth in the deletion debate about Jackson. He himself appears to have doubted the credentials of some matches that he chronicled. I think I would argue that, comparatively, the present-day ACS members have wider access to sources than Haygarth probably had, and there are more of them and they proceed by consensus, so it's not just "one man's view". I think you're misunderstanding the role of Cricketarchive in this and in relation to Wikipedia: Cricketarchive doesn't "decide" anything, it merely records and it does so by following the ACS decisions on the status of individual matches. Our use of Cricketarchive (and Cricinfo) as a source is there because WP demands verifiability through references, and these sites provide readily accessible reference where the arcane workings of ACS committees don't. WP:CRIN, by the way, is no one's property and if it needs altering, it certainly doesn't take an admin to do it: it is, though, derived through discussion among members of this project. So this is the right place to discuss any proposed changes. Johnlp (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I take on board what you say about Haygarth. Yes, I understand that CA's categorisation reflects that of the ACSH, although I didn't mention that. Looking at some seasons in the late 18th century, it seems that the categorising of matches as f-c has now been extended back as far as about 1780. Before that, they no longer attempt to categorise any matches as "major" but just include everything in "Other matches". JH (talk page) 09:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The first first-class matches on CricketArchive (and therefore on the ACS list) are now in the 1772 season. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also interesting to note that the ECB uses 'first class' in a completely different way: their rules use the term 'first class' to cover the County Championship, Clydesdale Bank 40 and Friends Life t20 and also the second XI competitions. It might be interesting to see whether Cricket Australia and any other national boards use similar terminology.  Harrias  talk 19:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps whoever at the ECB is responsible for their web site doesn't understand what "first-class" means. It's hard to believe that it could be the official ECB position. JH (talk page) 19:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:CRIN already contains the answer to my issue. All that is needed, I believe, is to place emphasis on this sentence: "Judge notability by reference to a source that makes clear it is discussing a major player in historical rather than statistical terms". This "rule" takes away the dependency on Cricket Archive and makes historical sources responsible for a decision on notability. If the project is happy with that, then so am I, although I still think the major cricket article is unsustainable. Thank you again to Johnlp for help and advice. -- Mike (chat) 18:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit worried that taking that literally would open up a very large number of existing articles to proposals that they should be deleted, even though their subjects unquestionably played first-class cricket, which I always understood we took as sufficient to guarantee notability. (Where f-c certainly goes back at last as far as 1864. I think it's ridiculous to pretend that it only dates from 1947, even if there was never a formal definition before that.) It's true that a good article should not rely solely on statistical data from CA (or Cricinfo), but isn't one containing only statistical data better than no article at all? One could say that people can always go to CA, but not all users of Wikipedia may be familiar with that site. I know that some members of this project have devoted enormous efforts towards trying to ensure that every player who played a f-c match for Such-and-Such a county has an article. That's not my own thing, but I would hate to see all their efforts made a waste of time. (And doesn't Haygarth only supply statistics for most of the players he mentions, and thus falls into the same boat as CA?) JH (talk page) 19:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with JH: of course it's better to have fully-rounded articles on players as far as possible, but in some cases there isn't much cite-able evidence beyond the stats. However, the fact that they have played important cricket (first-class, List A, or "major", or cricket at the highest level within nations that compete internationally at the highest level) confers notability and surely "encyclopedic" involves covering everything that is notable as far as possible, however sketchy the information. We shouldn't be forever seeking reasons to delete existing articles: there's plenty of work still to be done to create more articles and improve those we've got. And remember, WP is not paper. Johnlp (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

County articles
Hello there, I'm new to the project and have recently begun work on Surrey CCC and related articles. I have a few questions and they be coloured by my work in other sports, but I don't think that denies them their validity. Cheers, and I've noted that the atmosphere in this project is excellent and hope this doesn't bring things down a notch!  Omg †  osh 12:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that all facts and feats sections be looked at? Are they not WP:TRIVIA requiring removal (or perhaps transfer into the history section)?
 * I see it is standard to bold those players who have represented their country. There are a few reasons why I'm not sure this should be the case. Firstly, a cap for England is very different to a cap for Ireland. Secondly, it doesn't differentiate between someone who's won 125 Test caps and someone who's played a single ODI game. Thirdly, their representation at international level is surely a matter more relevant to the individual player's article (or, of course, national team articles); an article about Gloucestershire CCC should discuss the players' club, not country.
 * Something else that seems an unnecessary inconsistency in club names in articles names. For example, Northamptonshire County Cricket Club, List of Kent cricketers and List of Middlesex CCC presidents. It hardly makes the articles unreadable, but it might be a point worth considering.
 * Finally, has there ever been discussion of a cricket template, something commonplace in other team sports? See the Miami Heat and Northampton Saints infoboxes.
 * Your third point is one that I have particularly noticed in the past few months, and something we definitely need to work on standardising. Agree with you on the facts and feats; anything relevant can be presented prosaically, any records can go into a list article, and anything else can be removed. Similarly, agree on your second point, if you look at Somerset County Cricket Club, you'll see I have presented the information in a different fashion there: for one thing using bold to highlight something is against WP:ACCESS. In all, you've made good points, but ones I'll give more time to once I get back from honeymoon!  Harrias  talk 19:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion regarding your third point is that for players the general format should be: List of [county, state, etc.] [format] cricketers eg. List of Southern Rocks first-class cricketers, List of Western Australia Twenty20 cricketers. This keeps the title concise and relevant, clearly stating that the players involved are playing cricket, which is as not obvious, for example, with List of Wales Minor Counties CC List A players. I think for other lists it is best to spell out the full name of the club/team involved, eg. List of Kent County Cricket Club seasons, avoiding the ambiguity that is in place with just using "CCC", which at first glance could stand for any number of things. IgnorantArmies?! 08:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Champions League Twenty20 ?
maybe that can be part of the Template:Club world championships, I dont know this sport, you choose--Feroang (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as its made clear that it is Twenty20 cricket only, I don't see a problem with that. IgnorantArmies?! 08:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with including it either - but as per above, it needs to made clear it is Twenty20. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Best innings figures for Scotland in first-class cricket
I'm in the middle of creating an article for the Scottish cricketer William Laidlaw. In 1938 he took 7/70 against Yorkshire and I'm trying to find out where these innings figures rank for Scotland. I've checked the records on CI and they only go back as far as 1978. CA doesn't (unless I'm looking in the wrong place) hold first-class records for Scotland. Does anyone happen to know what the best innings figures for Scotland are? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * George Goddard (currently no article) has Scotland's best bowling figures in first-class cricket with 8/34 against Ireland in 1972. Laidlaw's return is 9th best. Nev1 (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nev, I just found the stats on Cricket Scotland site before coming here to say no worries. Cheers. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your best bet for associate/affiliate stats is our StatsZones on CricketEurope - we've just launched a World Cricket League section, which may be useful for articles on more recent associate/affiliate players. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll be sure to check it out Andrew. George Goddard has an article now. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

V.V.S. Laxman
POV and peacock alert. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Players
Hello! I'm user from Latvian Wikipedia. I really want to write some articles about the most known cricket players in Latvian language, but I don't know about whom should I write about. So could somebody tell me please who could be considered the most famous and greatest players (current and all-time) – some 5–10 (if more users could tell me diffrent players then it would be much better).-- Edgars2007  (Talk/Contributions) 12:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you going to be translating en.wiki articles into Latvian or starting from scratch? Nev1 (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Edgars. Great to hear you're looking to write about cricket. I would suggest starting with the five players voted the greatest of the twentieth century: Sir Donald Bradman, Sir Garry Sobers, Sir Jack Hobbs, Sir Vivian Richards and Shane Warne. --Roisterer (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fantastic to see someone from Lativa taking an interest in cricket! I'd also recommend starting with the above players suggested by User:Roisterer. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A nice WP:NPOV choice. And four of the Test-playing nations represented. We have an article on the poll: Wisden Cricketers of the Century. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wisden's Cricketers of the Century are more Not Our Point of View than Neutral Point of View. In any case, I think whether Edgars is writings articles from scratch or translating existing ones should have some influence on the decision. Bradman is a Featured Article, but Warne's article is a train wreck. Would it be a terribly useful article to translate in full? Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Warne's article needs urgently rescuing, for arguably the greatest bowler of all time, Nev isn't too far wrong calling it a trainwreck. It's a task I would take on, only for the article to be the article is deserves to be, it needs a far better editor than myself to do it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks to all of you!-- Edgars2007  (Talk/Contributions) 07:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

David Gower
Could we get this to GA do you think? S.G.(GH) ping! 13:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like there's much that needs to be done. I really the photo in the infobox – much better than this image which I found on (and deleted from) the Duncan Fletcher article. . IgnorantArmies?! 08:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominated it. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Test Match Sofa
Doesn't look notable to me (apart from describing what is probably an illegal operation). What do others think? JH (talk page) 08:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BCAST isn't much help on online radio stations. A Cricinfo article suggests some aspect of notability, and a Google search returned 247,000 results. I'd be interested to hear if any English editors had heard of it. IgnorantArmies?! 09:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Beware the Google Test. I Googled Test Match Giraffe and got c.750,000 hits. test+match+orgy derives even more and test+match+sex takes it over 11 million. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Try enclosing them with quotation marks, Dweller. I get 5 results for your suggestions and 250,000 for Test Match Sofa. Armies, I haven't heard of Test Match Sofa by name, but I have had the misfortune of clicking a link to it embedded (using YouTube) on Facebook. That itself is hardly enough though.  Omg †  osh 10:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Numerous coverage in reliable sources, but they're mostly blog results -- while not ideal, WP:RS says:
 * "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."
 * Which means they should qualify. Enough? I don't know. I've seen articles kept on notability grounds for less, though. (But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, etc.) For the record, I'm a big fan, so I'll abstain from any deletion discussion; obviously I'd prefer to see it stay, though :) You may also wanna take a look at Jarrod Kimber, a contributor to the sofa, who I would doubt is notable in and of himself. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 12:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources from the London Gazette
I'm doing the article on Walter Franklin and looking for some sources on the London Gazette. I've searched his full name an no results, I've then gone "W B Franklin" and got one result which I cam sure is him. I've then gone "W Franklin" and got several. One puts 'him' in the Dorset Regiment in April 1917 as a temporary lieutenant. The "W B Franklin" source has him down as a temporary lieutenant being promoted to temporary captain in May of that year, but as a recruiter in the Voluneteer Force. Another source for "W Franklin" dated July 1918 has this Franklin down as a temporary captain in the Machine Gun Corps. Can I be certain that the W Franklin's are the same person as the W B Franklin? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have to be careful. The London Gazette usually gives second initials if it knows them, and sometimes with initial appointments it gives the full name, so searching on "Walter Franklin", "Walter B. Franklin" and "Walter Bell Franklin" may bring results. But there were probably rather a lot of "W. Franklins" around as it's not that uncommon a surname and lots of people were called Bill or Wilfred or Walter in those days. Bryan Valentine wrote a warm obit of him in The Times, 20 March 1968, but doesn't mention war service. He was master of the Haberdashers' Company and died while playing croquet; at the time of his death he lived at Knodishall Place, Saxmundham. Johnlp (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While it all seems to point via the changes of rank at the right times that they could be the same, I don't think I can be certain that they are referring to the same person, I'll go along with what you said John. Do you have a link to his obituary? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I get access to the Times archives on-line through my local library and the system doesn't allow cut-and-paste, except as a "picture". I'll try to send it to you by email, if you have that enabled. Other bits (like address and livery company) are in other Times notices around the time of his death. Johnlp (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC) PS. Ah, I see you don't have email enabled...
 * I've enabled it now, first time I've done so since that dispute between BlackJack and the sock puppets who felt the need to spam my email when I stuck up for him. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My drive goes on!
I've now created articles for all 73 cricketers who have played first-class for Loughborough UCCE/MCCU. They're quite stubby, most of the players did little of note in their few matches, so not loads to write about. I've also expanded/cleaned up/referenced the main Loughborough MCC University page. The history and what not is still not loads, so if anyone knows more about it than me, edit away! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Make that Durham MCC University done as well! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? If they did little of note then are they even notable? Did they all go on to better things in first class cricket etc? I am approaching this, yet again, with an appalling ignorance of cricket. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? We have articles on people such as Ronald Eckersley (one fc Yorkshire v RAF) and Alan Abbott (1 fc Leicestershire v Kent).  The whole end aim of the project is to get an article for every cricketer who has played first-class cricket, be that 136 appearances or 1 appearance.  Per WP:CRIN, they're notable for having played first-class cricket. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is where my ignorance comes in. Is Loughobrough UCCE/MCCU, for example, a club that plays first class cricket? Or is it that all of the people you have listed played for Loughborough and also played fcc elsewhere? I don't have a problem with the fcc notability, be it one match or hundreds. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does play some f-c matches. as is stated in its article. JH (talk page) 17:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Loughborough MCCU (prior to 2010 UCCE) have first-class status against first-class counties. Each MCCU plays three first-class matches against the counties each season.  The players I've created articles for have played at least one fc for a UCCE/MCCU - some have gone on to play county/international.  There are two other MCCU's besides Oxford/Cambridge/Durham/Loughborough.  Those are Cardiff MCCU and Leeds/Bradford MCCU - neither have first-class status, but I recall reading somewhere the ECB intends make them first-class next season.  So there might be 22+ new player articles next season! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I get it now. Thanks for clarifying. I never did understand why Cambridge Uni was first class status vs first class counties but, hey, it is one of many things I do not understand about the sport. I kind of presumed it was a legacy of the Victorian/Edwardian old boy network of gentlemen amateurs/scholars etc. Regardless, it is good work that you are doing. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think as far as Oxford and Cambridge are concerned, it rather was a legacy of Victorian/Edwardian times, though they used to have a lot of fine players when those universities were more willing to accept good cricketers even if their academic credentials might be rather marginal. In contrasts to what AssociateAffiliate says, I thought that I had read that all the MCCUs were going to lose their f-c status from next season. JH (talk page) 19:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not where I originally read about it, but it mentions at least Cardiff getting first-class status here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable club
I think The Hurricane Cricket Club is probably not notable, but I figured I'd raise the issue here first before PRODing or AfDing it. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is indeed non notable. I'll leave you to PROD it! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad that User:Cmadler has brought this to our attention here, because I've looked through American club cricket teams and there's a few which could or could not be notable. The historic ones (Germantown, Belmont ect) obviously are.  There's some I think should be discussed here so we have a consensus.  What do people think about these: Hollywood Cricket Club, Compton Cricket Club, Young America Cricket Club, Tioga Cricket Club (historic, but to what degree?).  I've already PRODed a couple of the more obvious ones whic fail notability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hollywood and Compton should have enough references to show notability under the general notability criteria, especially Compton which has been well covered in the media in recent years. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cricket rating systems
I'm not sure if the article on cricket rating systems is notable, what do other project members think? Nev1 (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a beautiful coatrack for some non-notable systems devised by non notable people who happen to like cricket and would like to promote their websites/personal ratings systems. Delete or keep, it needs a purge. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd verge toward deleting. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've WP:PRODed it, so if that falls through I've give the article a heavy pruning. Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

England Test ground capacities
Someone has tried to be helpful, and has "updated" the capacities of the Test grounds at List of cricket grounds in England and Wales to reflect the figures given at the CricketArchive site. The trouble is that I think that the figures given in the CA article that our own article links to are very out of date, and the capacity figures that we had before - though not specifically referenced - are more likely to be correct. For instance, 23,500 sounds much more like the current capacity of The Oval - thanks to the building of the OCS Stand - than 18,000. And the ECB website gives 23,000 as the figure. OTOH the figure we previously had for The Rose Bowl looks far too high and the CA figure seems more credible. (The ECB site article on the ground doesn't seem to give a capacity figure.) JH (talk page) 19:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly CA is often ready to update their stats if we point it out (I remember one of the CA editors posted on this talk page asking us to email them) and if you have sources such as the ECB list etc so that they could source it properly. Would that be easier? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The maximum capacity for the Rose Bowl is 25,000 (when they bring in the temporary stands for ODIs/T20Is), The figure put on the list page of 6,500 is certainly too low.  The ECB has an article which says maximum of 25,000 and a permanent capacity of 15,000. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50
My watchlist just lit up as this template was added to a bunch of articles. I have no objection per se, although it does deprecate some other templates, like the english batsmen >50 one, but I have a problem with including current players, primarily because of statistical quirks, such as the impact of early careers (I recall Ian Bell having an average over 100 early on) and late careers (there's usually a drop-off). I'll invite the editor/s of the template here to discuss. --Dweller (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't feel strongly about this, but it does seem a bit unnecessary and fancruft-ish and I think all told we have far too many templates. A category would work as well and could then link to a single statistical article. If the name was changed to "Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 in their completed careers" it would have a degree more permanence and would get over the problem of, say, Pietersen who, on recent performance, is likely to be in, out, in, out (with probably a bit of "shake it all about", too). Johnlp (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the template: it offers things a cat cannot, such as easily seeing the actual averages and other information, such as how many Englishmen there are, compared to (let's pick a random country) Australians. The amended name is a decent idea. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If this template is ok, then the following would need to go as they are essentially subsets of this one and are used in the same articles: Also note that there are similar templates for ODIs. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would a redirect work rather than having to edit all the article pages? I don't have a problem with the one template to be honest, it's a nice neat collection of some of the best players and, to be honest, there aren't many undeserving ones in there. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I think a redirect or histmerge is required because this new template has been created by copying the older individual team ones -- and if it's done as redirects then we'll need to note that on the talk page to preserve attribution. That said I've never seen a template redirect before, do they transclude normally if they are redirects? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so, I'm pretty sure it works with project templates on talk pages for instance. Nev1 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A histmerge would not be possible. It would need to be done as redirects with notes on the relevant talk pages to preserve attribution. And, yes, I think templates do transclude normally if they are redirected. On another note, I would probably support removing current players from the template for the reasons that Dweller outlined above. Jenks24 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, considering that I always use the redirect for the project templates I don't know why forgot about those! Unrelated to the main discussion, why do you say a histmerge wouldn't work, we just need to combine the history of the original seven to one and then add that to the current page, right? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the seven templates all have parallel histories. If they were histmerged, the resultant history would be a mess, jumping around between seven different histories and giving the impression that each edit was changing the template from a template about English players to one about Australian players, to Indian players, back to English players, to Pakistani, etc., etc. In short, it would completely mess up the history, giving the impression that it was only one template all long and that editors were constantly edit warring about what nation it should concern. That might not have been very clear – please ask me to clarify if it didn't make sense. Jenks24 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I got that, I didn't think it'd be a problem in this case because it's a template and we aren't really going to look at the history for any information -- it's just there for attribution purposes. Anyways, it's a moot point, given that redirects are also a functional advantage in this case. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone think current players should be retained in the template/s? --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm generally in favor of the current players being included -- mainly because some of the current players (Dravid, Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara, Jayawardane, Sehwag, Smith) have these averages over a lot more matches than the others and it adds a very different perspective to the template (I think only Hussey and Samaraweera have played less matches than the top few of the retired lot). Also, as far as two of the Pakistani players go, their current/past status is about as stable as Pietersen's average. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the current players should stay, but possibly only those who have played a certain number of matches (without looking into it in more depth, I don't know what I would suggest for that number). As SpacemanSpiff says, a number of these players have played a vast amount of cricket, and they aren't that likely to see a significant drop. And, if they do, they can be removed.  Harrias  talk 18:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cricinfo generally uses 20 innings for these types of stats. By that cutoff Ernest Tyldesley just makes it (14/20); Kambli at 17/21 is next. Among the current players Trott's the lowest (23/30). There are 40 players who qualify for the 20innings/50+ average criteria. And we also have four women cricketers and I hope we can add them to the template too. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this is now in the "Templates for Discussion" list, where the word "discussion" is usually used as "shorthand" for "deletion". Johnlp (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

YellowMonkey
Anyone heard anything from the great man? Is seemingly gone for good.  Aaroncrick  TALK 08:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not since November last year I think. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ground infoboxes
I've been working through the list of notable Irish grounds, when I went back to The Mall, Armagh, which I created yesterday, I noticed the ground infobox has "IPL information" now included on it. Does anyone else think this is completely unnecessary considering Indian grounds which have held IPL probably make up 1% of all notable grounds globally..... it even appears on Lord's :-@ AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's not even necessary on those grounds where IPL matches are played, as to pick these games out as "special" over and above all others played on historic venues is recentism of the worst kind. Johnlp (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it - as a domestic competition it is clearly not needed. If we add that, we'll start down a slippy slope!  Harrias  talk 10:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent! The whole IPL is getting rather silly on here these days! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Australian state cricket teams
Move request started here on moving Australian domestic cricket teams from their nicknames to their full name (eg. Queensland Bulls to Queensland cricket team) per other domestic teams, if anyone wishes to participate. IgnorantArmies?! 16:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Any ideas?
I'm writing up the article on David Macindoe, but I'm struggling to find information documenting his military service throughout WWII. I've got the start of it and end when he was awarded the Military Crosss and ended the war as a Major. I've search "David Henry Macindoe" and got a few results, likewise for "David H Macindoe", "D H Macindoe", "D Macindoe" and even those searches with different spellings of his surname. Any ideas how to find out more???? Surely there has to be more in the Gazette documenting his rise in the ranks! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't see much. He finished as vice-provost of Eton, having been a master there since 1949. Mil records suggest he started the war as a second lieutenant and finished it as a lieutenant, and his later rankings were something to do with his TA role as head of the Eton combined cadet force. So maybe his rise in the ranks wasn't that meteoric. Johnlp (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've spent the last half hour looking, it does indeed seem as if his military career hasn't got as much coverage as a Military Cross winner might have! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps his was a rather secret war... Eton, Oxford, Artillery... Tinker, Tailor...? Johnlp (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems so! One final search and I think I'm about ready to give up... now for Inspector Brindley. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On the military theme, Ronnie Aird seems to have quite a story - none of which is in his bio... Hack (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Buckinghamshire cricketers
I have now created an article for every notable person to have played for Buckinghamshire - makes 242 244 notable players in total. Robert Shaw needs some expanding and I've left Donald Steel with the golfing folks, so once particularly Shaw is complete then I'll be done on that mini project. Dorset next....? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you plan to do Cheshire? I'm looking forward to seeing an article on one of my favourite South Australian/Cheshire players, the underrated Steve Wundke (sure, I suppose I could write it myself but where's the fun in that?) --Roisterer (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I intend to do all the Minor counties! I was going to create one for Wundke a few weeks back as he's a List A player on Bobo's lists, I got lazy and ended up not creating the article! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Old A-Class reviews
Hi! Just letting you know that there are a few old and unclosed A-Class reviews:


 * Australian cricket team in England in 1902 (WikiProject Cricket/Review/Australian cricket team in England in 1902)
 * Philadelphian cricket team (WikiProject Cricket/Review/Philadelphian cricket team)
 * History of United States cricket (WikiProject Cricket/Review/History of United States cricket)

See also WikiProject Cricket/Article alerts. Thanks. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that this project is not particularly active in article reviewing, I would suggest that we close all of these reviews and discontinue the A-class review within WP Cricket. It works well for the large projects such as MilHist, but I just don't think we have the manpower to make it worthwhile.  Harrias  talk 19:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now acted upon my suggestion and closed all these reviews, and commented out the references to A-class review on that page.  Harrias  talk 21:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Match template have not attendance info
Attendance is relevant enough to be there even if the response of some games in "attendance:not avaleable data", or big cricket games is played inside jails without public? tell me the thousands, 2,000 or 40,000? Also I am a foreing of this sport but 2011 Cricket World Cup say nothing about attendence--Feroang (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Attendance is not a common statistic recorded for cricket matches. The information is extremely hard to come by in reliable sources. – PeeJay 07:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't totally agree with that comment. A crowd attendance of 27,000 is quoted in Phil Wilkins match report published in the Sun-Herald 23 Feb 1992. I expect that at least match (indeed often daily) figures are known for the vast majority of first-class and Test matches played in Australia. I've often seen crowd figures quoted for matches in England too. RossRSmith (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011 Copa Sudamericana preliminary stages there are more football club games in a continental cup, attendance data is incomplete many times in south america and africa, but at least we try to find it, and the official source link in "report" help a lot, some link to the page of the national/continental/worldwide organization as source of some of the data wikipedia show (Conmebol is the CONfederation of southaMErican footBALL)--Feroang (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What information should we take, though? Test/first-class matches are spread over multiple days. Should we take the figures for the first day? The last day? All days combined? How important is this information to an encyclopedia, anyway? You rarely hear the attendance figure for the day in most match reports, even if some will include it. Especially compared to football where the number's read out at half-time, cricket doesn't seem to consider it a particularly important stat. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 22:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation and grammar questions
Hi. I just moved Tasmanian Tigers List A records to Tasmania cricket team List A records per the parent article, Tasmania cricket team, being renamed. So, I have two questions: should it be "List A" or "list A"? Our article, List A cricket, varies between the two. And secondly, is the new title grammatically correct? For some reason it feels a little off to me, but *shrug* maybe that's just me. If it is ungrammatical, then a new proposed title would be appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The title seems OK to me. I think it should be "List A" rather than "list A". I think that when I've seen the term used outside of Wikipedia it's usually been spelt with a capital L. JH (talk page) 08:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always used "List A". There's plenty of articles which have "test" instead of "Test" which I'm always correcting when I come across them. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. I'll leave the article where it is. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cricket grounds in Windhoek
It's actually cricket grounds in Namibia, but all the notable grounds are in Windhoek! Does anyone know if the Defence Force Ground is still in use and where it is in Windhoek? Does anyone know where the Trans Namib Ground aka Centre for Cricket Development Ground is located in the city??? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

List of international players whose articles need expanding
Some time back someone was kind enough to post a list of international players who only had article stubs and a mathematical equation to show the importance of each player and thus whose article needed the most attention. Does anyone know if the page is still around? --Roisterer (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking, I just came across what looks like an outdated to do list. Wasn't there though, but that could do with some updating or what not. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's at User:CricketBot/stubs and it's pretty out of date... though there are still plenty of articles that need expanding. There was another one called "substubs" after the oblique, but I think that one's been amalgamated into this one. User:Stephen Turner used to update them. Johnlp (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Len Hutton
I have created Len Hutton as England captain from some of the vast amounts of material available on Len Hutton. A nice person has prodded it and I haven't the inclination to argue; if anyone else feels like taking up the case either way, feel free as I probably won't get involved. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the PROD. As noted on the talk page, if it now gets taken to AfD I shall oppose its deletion there too. Johnlp (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured list candidate: List of centuries in women's Test cricket
Comments welcome at Featured list candidates/List of centuries in women's Test cricket/archive1. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments welcome and needed :) &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also at List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shane Warne sitting at WP:FLC! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Third Man Redirect
So, if you search "third man" it redirects here. I suggest a better place for this redirect might be here... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope fine where it is. Mt  king  (edits)  03:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you going to give a reason? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with the professor on this. The primary usage of this outside of cricket circles is going to be the film. I know it's not entirely scientific but a google search for "third man" + movie comes up with over five million hits while "third man" + cricket only returns about 500k results. Hack (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At first glance, I agreed with Mtking, but having a look at gbooks shows that the film is very well known (more so than the cricket term). Perhaps Third man should be turned into a disambiguation page, listing the fielding position, the film and Third man argument? Jenks24 (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable and also ensure that Third man (cricket) is also created. And a hat note from the film would also be good. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know the film is more of an "artsy" film, and reasonably highly regarded. But I don't know too much about cricket, so just figured that because "Third man" was only mentioned in the fielding article once under a smaller heading, I figured it should be okay to change the redirect... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have Third Man (disambiguation), no need for another dab page. Redirect it there, perhaps? Or, indeed, move that page over the redirect? Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 10:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think redirecting to the Third Man film page is better (you can then follow the link to the disambiguation page), but I guess I'm okay with redirecting straight to the disambiguation page. By the way, this is also being discussed here, and they've basically reached the same conclusion. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well this has got a bit confusing. Third Man still redirects to Fielding (cricket), but Third man now redirects to The Third Man. There is no clear primary topic. If the film was called simply "Third Man", then I would agree it is, but it's not, it's called "The Third Man" and all sources (and therefore most people searching for it) will include "the". Therefore, my suggestion is this: get an admin to move Third Man (disambiguation) to Third Man (which is what should be done when there's no clear primary topic). Then redirect Third man to Third Man – one capital letter is not enough of a distinction for people searching. Does that seem ok with everyone else? Jenks24 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Humour!
From the Blackwood Town Cricket Club article I've PRODed.

"On the other hand, Neil Reardon, Club legend, holds a rather more impressive record. He was recently forcibly removed from a Wetherspoons pub for slurring. Thrown from the pub of choice of tramps. For slurring. An achievement of which we'd all be proud."

Most unencyclopedic humourous nonsense I've seen on here! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparantly the captain of Elsecar Cricket Club is something I can do a good impression of! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Major cricket" redirect
Would anyone have a problem if we redirected "major cricket" to this section on the project page? Basically just to provide some explanation for the use of the term, which is linked to in 300+ articles, all of which are redlinks now. IgnorantArmies?! 09:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thought that cross name space links/redirects were to be avoided as per WP:CROSS (Currently, the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia: (project) namespace should be deleted). Mt  king  (edits)  09:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For now I'd suggest we redirect it to Forms of cricket as that seems to be the most reasonable mainspace target. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's pretty reasonable – at least, better than having hundreds of redlinks. IgnorantArmies?! 10:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

They're back!!!
Seems User:BlackJack's stalker has reappeared as 86.156.42.158, also see the above the comment on this talk page which was made by the same IP. Their focus seems to be on "major cricket", which given this recent AfD of the "major cricket" article, and the similar writing style in it by one user makes me think the IP is linked to the AfD nominator? The IP has contacted me on my talk page and resorted to ad hominem, which I have to admit I have retorted to with foul language. I however don't see why I should assume good faith or etiquette, when the stalker hounded a good member of this project off the site, as well as harrassing other project members, all the while they flaunt WP:POINT. From now on I shall ignore all messages from this a-hole. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Deny recognition.  Moondyne (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Even though blackjack has gone his fiefdom lives on. This project is a disgrace.Associatafiliate - a sockpuppet himself should resign as he intended himslf but again he goes mental with foul language and rude handsigns. see his page for evidence,. Who is moondyne Your english grounds is a bad joke. We used to laugh at you but now it is too silly for words. Wise up.Yours ATillman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.166.214 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism or a late bloomer?
According to the Titans cricket team page the Titans have a 37 year old keeper called Aslam Hafeji for whom no record exists on cricinfo or cricketarchive. I'm assuming this is vandalism but I don't know enough about South African cricket to be sure. Hack (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can find absolutely nothing on him. Regardless of whether it's true, It fails WP:V and so should be removed. And given that the top three results for Aslam Hafeji cricket are Wikipedia, Wikipedia and a Wikipedia mirror, I doubt it's true. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 07:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, it was just long-standing vandalism: . The player who was removed is on the two sources, so a revert and done. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 07:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I knew it was too good to be true... Hack (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hampshire first professional captain
My mind has got in a muddle! Was Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie the first professional captain, or was it Roy Marshall? It'll come to me later, unless someone can put me out my misery first! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The distinction between amateur and professional in English cricket was abolished at the end of the 1962 season, and as Ingleby-Mackenzie remained as Hampshire captain until the end of 1965 he's the last amateur and first professional, though whether he ever took any money is another matter entirely. You might say that Desmond Eagar, who was captain and secretary up to the end of 1957, was an example of the "shamateurism" that was rife after the Second World War, though Eagar was so wholehearted in both his on- and off-field roles that no one ever raised any questions about his status, even when others (eg Peter Richardson, Trevor Bailey) were being queried. Johnlp (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it depends if you mean official captain. I'm sure Phil Mead and possibly Alec Kennedy captained them at times in the 1930s but I don't think either was an official appointment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think John has answered it for me. It was the amatuer and professional destinction which was giving me a headache as his captaincy overlapped them.  Thanks John. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A search on CricketArchive revealed that Mead did indeed captain Hampshire in a number of matches, as many as 12 of them being during the 1933 season, when the official captain presumably had a long-term injury. JH (talk page) 21:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wisden's review of the 1933 Hampshire season in the 1934 edition says: "Illness overtook Lord Tennyson, who played in only three games, and with no other amateur regularly available, Hampshire, during the season, had as many as seven different captains. Generally the leadership fell upon Mead, but at various times the team was led by A. K. Judd, Rev. G. L. O. Jessop, J. P. Parker, Brown and Kennedy." Johnlp (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the information :-) AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

See hampshire Cricketers published by ACS for answers to all qestions of this sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.166.214 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
Talk:List of works by cricket historians and writers. Moondyne (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP & Aboriginality
I've touched on this before but on page 176 in the book "Black Gold: The Aboriginal and Islander sports hall of fame", the authors, listing major Indigenous cricketers, writes that in the 1960s there was "King ... and a former national player who has no wish to be identified". The player the authors are referring to is Grahame Thomas.

It would seem an important point to have in his article but would this break any BLP rules? --Roisterer (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found a reference (8mb) in the Koori Mail (a national Aboriginal newspaper) from 1991 to him being the last Aboriginal Test cricketer. The article is apparently a reprint of an article from The Age. The problem to me is that if he doesn't want to be identified as being of Indigenous origin (if indeed he is), we shouldn't be including this information... Hack (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * His Cricinfo profile refers to him as "part American-Indian". Which is not the same thing at all. Johnlp (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This may or may not be relevant but, particularly in the past, some Australians invented exotic backgrounds to hide their Indigenous ancestry (eg Sally Morgan). Despite all of this, I think the most important issue is the verifiability of this information.  Hack (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Thomas didn't want to be known as Aboriginal at the time of his playing career because he thought it would hinder his career and since then he decided to keep quiet about it. --Roisterer (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put it in unless there was a significant, non-biased source that had it – one of the national newspapers or Cricinfo, for instance. <dfn style="border-bottom:1px dotted #0645AD; font-style:inherit;">IgnorantArmies?! 08:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And the piece on Dizzy in The Sydney Morning Herald contradicts this too, as it says of Gillespie -- "...given his standing as the only known indigenous player to have worn the baggy green." I'd stay away from including this based on the book. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Lancashire club cricket
Having a look at some information on Arthur Mold, I noticed that in 1888 and 1889, he played three matches AGAINST Burnley, playing for Enfield, Skipton and Nelson. In all three games, he played as a professional. As the Lancashire League did not exist, would these matches have been competitive, friendly or what? And as Mold was playing against the same team each time, was he paid by Burnley to make up the numbers of other teams? This one has confused me a bit, so if anyone knows anything about Lancashire club cricket at this time (and even better, can source it!), I would be grateful. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have John Kay's book on League cricket, but it concentrates mostly on the great players he saw in the inter-war and immediate post-Second World War periods, and is pretty sketchy on the history beforehand. The Lancashire League was formed (as the North-East Lancashire Cricket League) in October 1890, with its first season of matches in 1892: Burnley, Enfield and Nelson were founding members. Johnlp (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I found this Wisden article from 1892, which unfortunately doesn't help with that question but may provide some other useful info for the Wikipedia article (such as explaining why he was in Lancashire that year). I also found Burnley Cricket Club's own website, but it doesn't help. JH (talk page) 09:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't perhaps surprising that Burnley CC might be a little less than enthusiastic about advertising their role in bringing Mold forward to greater prominence! Sydney Pardon was uncharacteristically caustic in the obit in Wisden 1922 here. Johnlp (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! There's a few bits in the Times as well, but nothing that really explains the Burnley connection. My guess would be that he was a Burnley player and they farmed him out, but there is no way of knowing. Re the Wisden obit, there is an even more scathing one in the Times which I think may also have been written by SHP. My favourite line is "He was a deadly fast bowler, but, all through his career, even his best feats in the cricket field were spoken of with something of apology." --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Mold's action got worse over the years, as Pardon presumably didn't see anything wrong with it in 1892, when he selected Mold as one of "Five Great Bowlers" (the feature that eventually became "Five Cricketers of the Year" of course). JH (talk page) 18:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All the retrospective stuff in 1901 and when he died claims that everyone always knew he threw. Apparently. And it's worth looking at the footage of him bowling in 1901. Despite the commentary, his action doesn't look that bad, and it was taken during the 1901 match at which he was called. But it is a suspiciously short run-up and not the most dynamic of performances, so maybe he was trying a bit harder than usual to keep his elbow straight? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The video's over 100 years old, is there any chance we could use it or does the modern cleanup renew the copyright? Nev1 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure as someone seems to be selling the film and it may now belong to the BFI. And as it's on Youtube, I'm dubious. However, others may have a better idea how it works. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one else can provide an answer I think it would be worth sending an email to the British Film Institute. There's no harm in asking and footage of Mold bowling and A. N. Hornby batting would be invaluable to their respective articles, not to mention the footage of Old Trafford. Nev1 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Be awesome if the footage could go on the relevant articles. I'd have probably no-balled him as well!  Guess I'd be less than popular... AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to an interview with Mold in an unnamed paper in about 1901 which suggests he was on the Lancashire staff (or the "Manchester club") from 1887: in which case he was probably loaned out for club matches as he was not qualified to play county games until he qualified by residence. Here from the same family website are some details of his background. Johnlp (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but unfortunately it does not give the source of the newspaper and would certainly not pass at WP:RS. Pity, for that would make sense; it may be that CricketArchive only has scores for Burnley matches, and the connection is not a real one.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You could email the chap in New Zealand who runs the Mold family website? Johnlp (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'll do that. You never know. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Justin Kemp
An IP keeps changing stats on this page for no obvious reason. Might be worth keeping an eye on it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Denis Compton
If anyone fancies working up a decent lead for Denis' article, that'd be great. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Beyond me....
...why this doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Impersonation attempt?
Something funny may be going on, so I thought I should warn people. Not long ago I received the following email, which seemed to be genuine:

<i>To: Jhall1 <john@xxxxx.co.uk> Subject:  New temporary password for Wikipedia From:  MediaWiki Mail <wiki@wikimedia.org> Date:  22 September 2011 20:28:05

Someone from the IP address 65.13.195.162 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "Jhall1" is "*****". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.</i>

The person at 65.13.195.162 was not me. Maybe they genuinely made a mistake when telling Wikipedia their username and gave mine by accident. Or maybe they were hoping to be able to use the new password to impersonate me. I imagine that wouldn't have worked, as the email giving the new password should only have gone to me. In any case I didn't take any chances, and immediately went to my preferences and reset my password to something different. Putting the password that Wikipedia had emailed me into the "Old password" field worked, confirming that the email was genuine.

I thought that I should warn people in case it is some evildoer targetting people on this project. I've also emailed Wikipedia to let them know about it. JH (talk page) 20:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... suspected it might have been Daft as he's been active of late in abusing project members, but I looked at the sockpuppet archive for Daft and the recent (and previous IPs) used by him all begin in 80-something. Not annoyed anyone in Fayetteville of late???  That's where a tracking site says the IP originates from. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The tracking site that I tried reckoned that address belonged to the ISP BellSouth.net Inc. I suppose that they could be based in Fayetteville. A traceroute to that particular IP address suggested that the person using it is somewhere in the New York region, judging by the names of the machines the query passed through en route. JH (talk page) 20:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This has happened to me a few times over the years, and I've assumed it was someone random trying it on or a genuine attempt by someone to register using the name I already have. The security setting, which requires you to confirm a password change and ignores the change if you don't confirm, seems to work, so I wouldn't worry. I'm sure it would be nothing to do with any of our current critics, internal or external. Johnlp (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The possibility that it was someone trying to register as jhall1, not realising that it was already taken, hadn't occurred to me. JH (talk page) 09:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes; Height and Weight
FYI -- readers of this page may be interested in the discussion and poll here as to whether a baseball player's height and weight should be reflected in his wp infobox.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

James Taylor (cricketer, born 1990)
I've carried out a good article review on this article: Talk:James Taylor (cricketer, born 1990)/GA1, which was nominated by User:Joesayers before he retired from the site. At the moment, although the content is there, the prose is letting it down: would anyone be willing to take this article over to try and get it up to standard in the next few weeks? I'm willing to provide a more detailled review for anyone who wants to help, but if not, I'll fail the article at the end of the hold period in a week's time.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 16:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nawab of Pataudi
Hi,

If anyone has a few minutes, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, Nawab of Pataudi Jr, could do with a new infobox. Noticed it after his death recently. Think there was an obit in one of the broadsheets today (DT I think).&mdash;User:MDCollins (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Victor Pascall
I have created an article on Victor Pascall, a pre-Test West Indies player. However, there does not seem to be any obituary of him in Wisden, unless it is in the wrong year. There's probably not much else out there, but an obituary or two would be helpful. Any suggestions gratefully received. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The CoY article in Wisden for Learie Constantine mentions him, basically confirming what you had already gleaned from Gerald Howat's biography of Constantine. JH (talk page) 08:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ref request
If anyone has access to David Frith's The Slow Men, I'd be forever grateful if you could supply the page ref to Frith's statement that a certain Malcolm Dolman was going to be a star of the future (it's somewhere near the back of the book). And of course, if anyone happens to have other info on Dolman just lying around, feel free to pass that on too. --Roisterer (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * from page 179 of Frith's book - "...a young man in Adelaide appealed to Ashley Mallett as the most exciting spin prospect he had ever seen. This was Malcolm Dowman, a dapper little figure who impressed with the Australian Under-19s in England in 1977, and made his Shield debut in 1981-82, when his left-arm off-breaks, googlies and top-spinners were not seen at their best."RossRSmith (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Roisterer (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:crw
Can anyone in the know help with this? I'd like to have International XI women's cricket team and Young England women's cricket team added as an option. They both had WODI status. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not totally sure of the answer but I do know it lies in the country data. I've had to request changes to country data for a number of U19 and women's teams that are not recognised as countries in their own right (eg. West Indies, Jersey etc.) so tha the system would work for the cricket template. Young England you could just do as basic England's women but International XI is trickier as I'm not sure what that would link to... Sorry I couldn't be more help with this. Waterhogboy (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked User talk:Andrwsc about this as he's edited these templates before. Apparently there was consensus not to do a world icon/flag and he's suggested to just use the template for YE. Whoever creates women's lists ought to remember that (perhaps also for the U-19 stuff too). cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ted Alletson
How the heck did Ted Alletson come to play more than 100 first-class matches, given he took just 33 wickets and averaged less than 20 with the bat? Even in his famous innings, he came out to bat at number 9 in the order. I know that averages aren't everything, and blockers especially can have averages that don't tell the story of their value to the side and that batting these days is an easier proposition, but still... how or why did Notts afford to include a professional specialist batsman who wasn't very good more than 100 times? --Dweller (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the key is that the games came across 9 years. This article and Benny Green's History of Cricket suggest he was something of a frustrated bowler; apparently he was trying to master a super-delivery, a fast leg-break, but it never came together. Competition from other bowlers prevented him bowling much and he looks to have been one of those bits-and-pieces cricketers who never really become particularly good. And he was in and out of the team. Why they persisted with him so long is a mystery, but I think after that innings, he probably kept his place on the strength of one performance. He even played a Test trial. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Super answer, thanks. Yes, I guess THAT innings protracted his career, but that bowling record is a part of the general puzzle that is his career! --Dweller (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured list candidates
Current featured list candidates: Comments welcome. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shane Warne/archive1
 * Featured list candidates/List of centuries in women's Test cricket/archive1
 * Featured list candidates/List of Japan women ODI cricketers/archive1
 * Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Anil Kumble/archive1

Work cut out
Figuring I'm going to have my work cut out on this AfD! Couple of others on the go as well. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sobers
Our article is currently at Garfield Sobers. Do you think that WP:COMMONNAME would suggest it should be there, at Garry Sobers or Gary Sobers? A simple Ghit count shows Garfield 176,000 Garry 77,200 and Gary 104,000, which seems to give some weight to Garfield, but Sobers named his own autobiography "Garry" --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A good point. I'd say "Gar(r)y" is used more often than "Garfield". Perhaps a move discussion might be in order? IgnorantArmies 11:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a discussion here first would be useful, as more cricket experts will be watching this page than the Sobers talk page. --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem you get with Gary or Garry is which one of them. I can't remember which way around it is, but I've read somewhere that early in his career he preferred one, and now prefers the other. Probably safest to leave at Garfield. Also, as a knight of the realm (whose realm? someone's realm, anyway) he's formally Sir Garfield Sobers. Johnlp (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was always "Gary" up until at least the 1970s, but tends to be "Garry" now, presumably to reflect his own wish. It probably doesn't matter too much which one we choose, so long as appropriate redirects are in place. JH (talk page) 17:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it me or have the categories layout changed at the bottom of articles?
Like on Winston Churchills which looks ridiculous and when searching his article, it appears the search box has become unhelpful. A change or has my laptop gone nuts? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We're running a new version of the mediawiki software and it's caused dozens of glitches. Have a look at the Village Pump (technical) area for more info... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I was wondering what's happening, the sorting on our FLs have taken a turn for the worse and the search function doesn't seem to work etc. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Horrible changes, can't fathom why there needs to be such huge gaps between the categories. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Venue of the Final at the 1998 Commonwealth Games cricket.
The final was held at a venue called the Perbadanan Kemajuan Negari Selangor in Kualar Lumpur. Having found the district it's in there appears to be no cricket ground nearby, but there is a large stadium, the MBPJ Stadium, which I'm wondering could have been the illusive ground I'm looking for and been used for cricket during the games. Anyone else agree with that logic? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. See here.  The MBPJ is the stadium at the top left, but in the middle, there is a ground called "Komplex Sukan PKNS" (PKNS Sports Complex) that I think is more likely.  This page is too vague to be more specific - other than at the top of that page it says that "Seating Capacity : 1,000 average at each venue" and this page says that 1200 tickets were sold, so I doubt it would have been at the 25000 seat main stadium (but CrickArchive says over 7000 attended... hmmm).  But single soccer pitch sized stadiums are also not suitable (unless the running track is covered?), whereas the other one seems like it has multiple soccer pitches next to each other, so temporary stands may have been used to make a proper sized ground. I will contact the Bowlologist on twitter to see if he remembers anything about the ground - he took 1/44 and got run out off the 3rd last ball. The-Pope (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All very confusing! With those maps, I'm suprised anyone found the grounds used for cricket, had me scratching my head!  I had considered that ground when I looked last night, but just as quicky discredited it.  Looking closer at it there appears to be the remains of some nets in the top left hand corner of the ground.  The 7,532 attending certainly adds to the mystery.  Thanks for all your help Pope, hopefully the Bowlologist will clear the mystery up! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The 7000 crowd would easily be accommodated in temporary stands - the Lilac Hill games in Perth were held at a suburban ground and attracted over 11,000 people in corporate tents and temp stands. See the map and the attendance The-Pope (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And I think we can mark this as confirmed... the roof colour and style here in google view matches the style and colour from here. The-Pope (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help Pope. Lilac ground looks very picturesque, unfortunately for me Australian immigration is a tough cookie, so my chances of playing at a ground like this in my life is remote :( AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Finally!
I've finally remembered to look through the contributions by User:Mendesa, noted for his creation of articles of pure fantasy on Great Britain national cricket team, One day Internationals Teams and National cricket stadium (which was the best of the lot), among many, many others! Much of what he has contributed was utter nonsense, I believe it is all removed/reverted now. Phew! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In the news Head-up
2011 Champions League Twenty20 has been nominated for inclusion on the main page under the In the News section, a discussion is going on here. Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  19:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable or not?
Singaporean cricketer Sagar Kulkarni - notable or not? He hasn't played up to WCL Division 5 level, but holds a T20 record for scoring the first T20 double. This was made in a club match in Singapore, so I'm unsure whether this record warrant notability. My gut feeling is a no. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it can go either way. Need to remove the bit about it being the only double century in a Twenty20 match though as Tyson Gordon has one in Canadian club cricket. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Blimey that guy didn't look like he knew which end of the bat to hold during the World Cup! I'll AfD it and see what the feedback is. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Kimemia Maina (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My query is really how applicable acreditation of First Class or List A status is for domestic cricket competitions, players, teams and grounds outside the full members, or played before a nation gained full membership is as a measure of notability. Consider this, ICC if a domestic competition is not held in a full member it simply does not get List A/First Class status.  irrespective of everything else. Does this always serve as sufficient grounds to delete a page? My opinion is no. See also the debate around the deletion of this page Northern Nomads.

Naming cricketers
Hey everyone. In Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shane Warne/archive1, I've had a comment about the way in which Indian and Pakistani (and Bangladeshi I think) cricketers' names are listed. I've tended to stick with Cricinfo, which is to say that (for example) Michael Atherton becomes MA Atherton while (for example) Yuvraj Singh becomes, ... well ..., Yuvraj Singh. The comment (and a fair one at that) has highlighted that we (or, at least Cricinfo) treat the naming of cricketers differently from nation to nation. This may have been discussed before (if so, my apologies, please link me up) but it would be useful to me, at the very least, to understand (1) how the naming works and (2) if the naming on the list is legitimate and justified. I feel oddly stupid about the whole thing and don't want to cause offence, so please accept my apologies (again!) if this clearly basic question causes anyone to twitch uncontrollably...! As ever, thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied at the FLC.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 19:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Recently stumbled across this again having pretty much forgotten about it! Would be nice for a bot to go through them all, whether such a bot is even possible is beyond me! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

RM
The discussion at Talk:Reverse (cricket) may be of interest. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh
I see that the woefully unreferenced Indian Premier League, and the even more poorly referenced Chennai Super Kings (thrice nominated for FA) are up for GA. Both easily qualify for quick failure: for the integrity of the project, it'd be nice to get them at least somewhere near the required quality, but quite frankly I don't care enough about the IPL to do so.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 09:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I never go for GAs or FAs because I don't think I'm a good enough editor, but even I thought I was, I'd echo similar sentiments! AssociateAffiliate (talk)
 * Just to follow up on this, I have reviewed the IPL article and failed it as it is a long way off. I left some suggestions in the review, but we'll see what happens. It's a shame, for whatever anyone's views of the IPL (and I'm not a big fan either) it is one of the biggest things in cricket at the moment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cricket tournament
Just looking through the 2009 ACC Twenty20 Cup article when I noticed the tournament infobox has the batsman that scored the most runs down as the "best batsman". I've reverted the edit which changed "most runs" to "best batsman", but may be some eyes on it to make sure it remains reverted!!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Another milestone
I think that's articles for all notable grounds in Europe (Denmark, England and Wales, France, Germany, Ireland, Jersey, the Netherlands and Scotland) that have now have articles. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Australia done now. Argentina next, then perhaps what I'm expecting to be a long task with the Indian and Pakistani lists. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

T20 Rankings
As far as I'm aware this table is a new development, but I assume it should be placed on the season articles alongside the Test and ODI ones? Tony2Times (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh joy, another reason for fans to start posting on pages that a player is top ranked by the ICC. Though it is amusing to see Afghanistan at 9, Bangladesh absent, and New Zealand above South Africa and Australia. The headline on cricinfo's front page is "England No. 1 in new T20 rankings" so I guess that means they're new. Nev1 (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All down to the amount of T20's they've played in a year I think, so Bangladesh and Ireland should enter above Afghanistan. But joys of joys, more fan worship on its way! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

NEW BOOK reveals all pre-1750 scores
From Commons to Lords, Volume 1 was published in 2009 by Ian Maun and was nominated for the Cricket Society Book of the Year 2010, but didn't win. It has used the British Library Burney newspaper archive to access all references prior to 1750. It is a massive scholarly work and it renders elements of the pre-1750 contributions inaccurate. The book is available from an address listed on the ACS site. This scholarly work is the first to include all known newspaper references. I understand cricketarchive will soon update their database using Mr Maun's source. KestevenBullet (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am probably sailing into the tempest but on what basis you are claiming this book is a scholarly work? Hack (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The book exists and here is a review. As for whether it's a scholarly work, I'll leave that for others to judge. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the personal attack in KestevenBullet's post and have edited his content to represent his essential point which is about how WP:CRIC should use this book vis-à-vis existing sources.
 * Mr Maun's book is a history of early cricket to 1750. It apparently uses the methodology employed in the past by G B Buckley and H T Waghorn of reproducing contemporary notices and reports found in newspapers and other primary sources. I haven't seen the book but it may begin about 1696 when the Licensing Act that controlled the press to that time was repealed. During the period in question, cricket was played with a two-stump wicket, the bowling was underarm without pitching, the bat was shaped like a hockey stick and there was no lbw.  Evolutionary changes into the modern game occurred in the 1760s and 1770s.  Due to infrequency of reports, information about matches, teams and players are piecemeal and all articles about the period are necessarily short.
 * Daft may be correct when he insists that Maun's work is "scholarly", but Hack and Nev are certainly correct when they question the assertion. Daft also says that CricketArchive will soon update their database using Maun's data. This may or may not be so and all we can do is wait and see if it happens.
 * The issue is how WP:CRIC should utilise this source given that it not only introduces new data from formerly unsourced reports, but also directly challenges content that has been documented in the past by other researchers whose works are cited in CRIC articles. For example, Daft has taken a match out of 1728 English cricket season and placed it in 1729 English cricket season because Maun has a match with the same title in 1729. Daft insists the 1728 date is an error by Waghorn, who originally found the reference, but it is possible that the same match was played in both years and that Maun has found the second one but not the first. And it should not be assumed that Maun is always right: he might have made errors too. We don't know. So, when Hack and Nev question Daft's insistence that the work is scholarly, this is the sort of point that must be addressed.
 * The 1728 date for this Middlesex v London game was originally recorded by Waghorn and it has subsequently been agreed by the ACS, whom Daft normally extols to the skies, and by Martin Wilson whose 2005 book corrects Waghorn's many errors. In addition, CricketArchive presently has the match in its 1728 matchlist, not in 1729. So this is a good example of how data in Maun's work may contradict existing information.
 * My suggestion is that we should continue to recognise the existing sources but, at a future date, adopt Maun's version if CricketArchive should ever change its match listings to comply with his. Otherwise we will have a conflict between Maun on the one hand and the likes of Ashley-Cooper, Buckley, Haygarth and Waghorn on the other. It makes sense to let CricketArchive be the umpire. Where Maun has found new data, I see no problem with that being used here as long as it is properly cited and it does not disrupt the structure, flow and context of the article. Jack | talk page 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if I may be able to get a copy of the book and, if so, I'll see what can be used. I'm told, by a reliable contact this time, that it is recommended and it contains a lot of previously undiscovered material, though there are some variations from the earlier sources such as the Middlesex v London game. Will report back if I do manage to buy it. Jack | talk page 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've got the book now and it is very good. I wish I'd known about it earlier but better late than never. I was right that the Middlesex v London fixture was played more than once and, contrary to Daft's dogmatic statements, Ian Maun lists it in both 1728 and 1729, the latter record being newly found. As and when time allows, I'll use the book to update the early seasonal articles. It covers 1700 to 1750 inclusive. If anyone has any questions about the book, let me know on my talk page. Jack | talk page 19:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by V. V. S. Laxman/archive1
I have taken this to WP:FLC/CONTEST. Since the number of centuries is 22 (3 less than 25), the reviewer feels it might not be appropriate to have a separate list. I have had this doubt when I created this list and even asked that to User:SpacemanSpiff, a well experienced editor in this project, who made it clear that having a separate list isn't a problem, as the main article is not too short. -- Commander (Ping Me) 03:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

English/England cricket team
Shouldn't this article be "England cricket team..."? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No. If you look at the category you will see that we long ago established "English cricket team" as our convention.  I think there was a WP guideline in place which we had to follow.  Actually, I agree with you as "England cricket team" seems to be in common usage.  Jack | talk page 16:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is one of the vagaries of our system - I think I remember it being something to do with being "England and Wales"? The discussion will be in the archive somewhere.&mdash;User:MDCollins (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I've found in Archive30, which I concede may not be the most recent decision, was that England was the preferred choice, in line with other articles, but England (and West Indies) wouldn't use the "national" bit. Perhaps nobody finished moving them? A while back, when I had lots of time, I created this page in my sandbox of categories that I felt needed moving inline with the "Foo cricket team" (not "Fooian" cricket team) guideline that was being developed here. I would imagine that I posted notification of the list on this talk page for checking, but then I guess the real world took over.&mdash;User:MDCollins (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Eye on
Appears to be a mass IP editing war of "my favorite cricketer is x number on the list" on the ESPN Legends of Cricket article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole article is a mess, hit by years of people falsely changing the list. Look at older revisions and you'll see Kapil Dev's been promoted a handful of spots, Murali's been put on it when he wasn't originally, Keith Miller's suddenly missing, etc. Not to mention the only source it cites is unreliable, and the external link seems to have changed to the extent that I'm not convinced ESPN publish this list any more. But the biggest problem is that we shouldn't include the entirety of the list -- an encyclopedic article on this should cover the notability of the list, not just restate what's included. The content of that list is copyrighted and we cannot republish it in its entirety. This is a long-standing precedent stemming from debates over at The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time -- see here. As such, I've removed everything below the top 10.
 * Beyond that, is this list really notable? Has this list's merits and importance actually been discussed by any reliable, secondary sources? I'm not convinced it has. It's just a list that some website made as a feature -- that doesn't make it suitable for Wikipedia. The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time has a reception section (even then, consider how small it is, when that's a far more well known list than this), which is the kind of thing this would need if it was to demonstrate notability, but I expect it's highly unlikely that this has ever garnered the kind of attention beyond non-trivial coverage. Could be wrong, though. Googling it now, I can only find forums discussing this -- absolutely no critical commentary from any reliable sources at all. Any thoughts on whether this should be AfD'd, or does anyone think it can be saved? Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards the article not being notable. Buttons to Push Buttons has hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. If independent third party sources don't cover this, it's not notable. Time for AfD. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, reading up some more, the entirety of the list should be removed -- that old thread certainly was the consensus on lists of this type, but that has been supplanted by the official legal position of the Wikimedia Foundation. See User:Moonriddengirl's comment here and NFC, point 5: "A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner." is unacceptable. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If it went to AfD, I would support deletion. It isn't notable, it's POV and there is the real risk of copyvio if it isn't regularly watched. Jack | talk page 18:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did look though the history and to be honest couldn't be very much bothered to revert all the edits! It looked a lost hope when I came across it on the watchlist, but as it dated back to 2007 I assumed it had gone through the notability debate.  If it goes to AfD I'd support deletion.  I'll do a quick search and see what sources come up, (not holding my breath though!) nothing much does I'll AfD it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep found nothing whatsoever which implies notability. I've taken it to AfD. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And this is the link if you are interested. Jack | talk page 13:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

They have gone nuts!
Now the BCCI thinks the IPL should be classed as List A cricket.... "The committee also voted to classify the IPL as List A cricket..." AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * More pointless meddling. Firstly, I hope it does not apply retrospectively; secondly, I hope the ICC has some way of turning this down (I doubt); and thirdly, I hope CricketArchive and Cricinfo do not change their classification system, so WP has an excuse not to follow the BCCI's ill-considered ruling. IgnorantArmies 10:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * List A was devised by the ACS for its own purposes and then adopted as an official classification by the ICC. I'm not sure who has final say nowadays but I would think the BCCI decision would have to be ratified somewhere. If ACS don't like it, I wonder if they can refuse its ratification or if ICC have the final say. Anyone know?  Certainly it shouldn't apply retrospectively and there's an ICC precedent there in first-class cricket which officially began in 1947.  Jack | talk page 13:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But when you look at the World XI/Packer Supertest/ICC World XI decisions, precedents don't mean much. What about ICL? Big Bash? CLT20? Crazy idea if it has been reported correctly.  The only thing in their favour is that List A has included 60 over, 50 over,  the weird 45 over/2 innings format from Aust last summer, 40 over (I think), 12 a side, subs, now so why not 20 over cricket too. From our List A cricket article, the link to the cricinfo story about the ICC clarifying what is what is now dead.. but able to be retrieved from here. Looks like they left the door open for the BCCI to do what they want. "ICC has now decided to take over the definition of List A and to place future classification decisions in the hands of its Full Members. Therefore Full Members will, for the first time, be required to determine which limited overs matches played under their jurisdiction should be accorded List A status." There is a "please play nice" clause - "Governing Bodies will wish to ensure that their future List A classifications are consistent with (a) each other, (b) past decisions and (c) the definition of List A as written by the ACS and now being adopted by ICC" The-Pope (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you be jumping to conclusions here? After all, there is List A Twenty20 too - perhaps the BCCI didn't consider the IPL to have List A Twenty20 status before now, though it appears the ACS did. The classification of official cricket document on the ICC website still makes it clear that a List A match must be scheduled for at least 40 overs. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Earliest known mention of Grace and cricket
Commenting on the Statutes of Cambridge University in 1710, a writer notes in a letter: "And the young Lads are all declared to be perfectly at Liberty to be absent from Grace, without incurring the penalty prescrib’d by the Statutes: And because some of ’em, perhaps, might be impatient to run home to their studies, others to try a fair Fall on the Grass, and others to make a match at Foot-Ball or Cricket, he alleges the Unreasonableness of the Founders in requiring them to wait for saying Grace; especially considering that, as it happens sometimes, they dispatch their Meals with greater Expedition than the Fellows do."

This passage has historical significance because it is the first known mention of cricket at Cambridge University (Oxford's is in 1673). But it is also surely the first time that anyone mentioned Grace in the same sentence as cricket..... :-) Jack | talk page 21:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Pat Murphy - the cricket commentator
Is he notable? I'd guess yes, but struggling to find RS. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought that he was definitely notable. I don't think that he's done much actual commentating, but he has done a lot of reports on both cricket and football for BBC national radio over the last thirty years or more. He has also written some cricket books, so you might be able to find something useful on Amazon. JH (talk page) 20:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And a Google search on "Pat Murphy cricket" turns up quite a bit of info from reputable websites, inckuding the information that he writes for the Birmingham Post. JH (talk page) 21:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I remembered that I had a copy of Alec Stewart's autobiography, "Playing for Keeps", which Patrick Murphy "assisted" him with. It was published by BBC Books in 2003. On page 4, the publication data page, we find: "Patrick Murphy, who assisted Alec Stewart in writing this book, has reported on cricket and football for BBC Radio Sport for the past 25 years. He has covered twelve England cricket tours... This is his 41st book; he has collaborated with, among others, Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Allan Donald, Viv Richards and Graham Gooch. He has also written acclaimed biographies of Brian Clough and Ian Botham. He lives in Worcestershire and plays village cricket to a stunningly mediocre standard." JH (talk page) 09:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Murphy also was disappointed when Aggers succeeded Johnners as BBC Cricket Correspondent, as alluded to by Peter Baxter in Inside the Box (mentioned here. I think it is mentioned in Aggers' Thanks Johnners but not sure of that at the moment. Apperently there is/was no love lost between Aggers/Murphy.&mdash;User:MDCollins (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree he is notable. He also wrote the book about those who have scored 100 first-class centuries ("From Grace to Ramprakash" is the latest, updated edition), which is a great little book. I found this about him, but as with stuff on Amazon, I'm not too sure it is a RS. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just read RS, and I don't see any reason why Amazon shouldn't be treated as a reliable source when it comes to which books an author has written, or if it gives information about a writer. In fact it would strike me as perverse not to accept it as such. It would be rather like not accepting CA or CI as a source for cricket statistics. With the performingartistes site it's much less clear-cut, but I would be inclined to accept it. What's written there about Murphy looks correct to me, and their Home and About Us pages indicate that they are a longstanding and reputable company who aren't likely to make stuff up about their clients. The RS guideline points out that common sense should be used. JH (talk page) 22:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm reassured he's notable and will create an article in a mo. I'm a bit unsure about its title, so please do chip in at Talk:Pat Murphy (sports journalist) in case you prefer disambig of writer, commentator, +/- cricket etc! --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

CfD
Hi guys. Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 31 may be of interest. I know a few of you aren't huge fans of CfD, but please don't rip into me too badly :) Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Evolution of cricket media
I know we have articles on the individual components, but do we have an article on the history of broadcasting and commentating on cricket? Charting the birth of TMS, televised cricket, getting cameras at both ends, stump microphones, slow motion replays, WSC, the launch of CricInfo, Cricket Archive, Sky Sports getting rights over Channel 4 and all that. Something to tie it all together. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Male cricketer categories
I'm in the process of creating separate categories for male and female sportspeople. I would appreciate feedback on how to name the mens cricketer categories, either here or at Category talk:Australian cricketers. Thanks -- John Vandenberg (chat) 08:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that cricket doesn't have restrictions on women playing for men's teams, so the equivalent national team catagories certainly shouldn't be renamed! Andrew nixon (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Really?? Women play in mens teams at competition level? If so, do you know of any examples? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not something that happens regularly, but it does happen, especially at lower levels. A lot of the England women's team play in "men's" club cricket, sometimes at the highest levels of club cricket (but never first-class cricket), and I suspect that may happen in other countries too. The Austria national cricket team are the only national side that I can find evidence of them picking a woman. It's happened a few times at European youth level - France once picked three girls for an Under-15 tournament. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

News to me too, but interesting. If a woman could play for England, but a man couldn't play for the England women's team, I foresee a legal challenge at some point! --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Another CfD
Please se Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 8. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Print Material
This new section on CA looks like it could be pretty useful once more information is displayed on it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The subsection devoted to articles from The Cricketer looks as if it could be particularly useful. But we must make haste, as the subsection says: "Please note that this section will become a subscription area soon - it is free to view at the moment as a 'taster' of things to come." Depending on what level they set the subscription at, I might subscribe. JH (talk page) 20:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Player categories
Was there ever a discussion behind the apparent consensus to categorise players by team without any disambiguation (eg Category:Kolkata cricketers for Kolkata Knight Riders players and Category:Essex cricketers for Essex County Cricket Club players)? Hack (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote
Any of you lot active over there? If so, it'd be nice to get the Jonathan Agnew page undeleted / rewritten and reffed. The "leg over" quote is very notable, as our article makes clear, as well as, more arguably, the one about the "rubber". --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't know...
...the most exciting game of cricket I've seen in a while is happening now. Australia are 21/8!! . IgnorantArmies 14:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now 21/9. Amazing. Jenks24 (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn Siddle, I thought Australia were about to make history. Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I must admit I was kind of hoping, too. :) IgnorantArmies 14:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 47... and it could have been so much worse. Can't believe Clarke made 150 in the first innings. Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 236 looks a long way after today's play. It's not every day you can skittle a side for 47 and still not be firm favourites to win the match. Nev1 (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When was the last time a number 11 top scored in an innings? Damn Siddle, he is one of these determined tailenders who puts up a remarkable fight time and time again. Isn't Test cricket brilliant! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * January 2, 2005, it would seem. A fascinating spread of dates, though. Bobo. 19:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4th innings shows there wasn't too many demons in that pitch! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Early Cricket
I have stepped into the battle so to speak. I am concerned that the problems over the early cricket editing are making fools of everybody. As a name known to some, in the spirit of making a correct record I shall alter things where I have references to support it. On the 1728 page Mr Blackjack seems at odds with himself over Mr Maun's new book. As I believe two other correspondents have pointed out, Mr Maun corrects along standing error regard a match 'played' in 1728. This was a transcription error in 1900 which has been made into fact by many writers. On page 246 of his second volume of Commons to Lords, he corrects the error with reference to the newspapers of the era. I would point out that many of the matches listed here, or elsewhere, were only proposed, there being no record of the result. Mr Blackjacks assertion that Samuel Johnson played cricket is from a very unreliable source which is better treated as a work of faction. In the millions of words the Staffordshire scribe wrote, none refer to cricket except the entry in his dictionary. Peter Wynne-Thomas (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's good to have you on board, and it would be very good to get some of these issues resolved without the personal animus that has at times spilled over into these areas. Referenced contributions are very welcome, and you might consider, where there has been a change in the records through new research, spelling out the history of that so that the articles make clear both what is now considered correct and what was formerly believed. Johnlp (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this the actual Peter Wynne-Thomas or Daft posing as him? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. Johnlp (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pre 18th Century Cricket
Without wishing to plug my new book, I point out the difficulties historians have face. Mr Waghorn et al had to locate their sources which meant they visited the British Library or toured Britain in search of newspapers. Until McCann and before that Mr Goulstone, no extensive research had taken place and much of the deep knowledge was purely local, thus we know a lot about Wales. Mr Maun began a project to accumulate all sources anyone could reasonably know about. Unfortunately after he and Keith Warsop had done much hard work, the British Library put it all on database and made it quite easy to see each and every reference to cricket in the newspapers printed before eighteen hundred. I am told that the majority of nineteenth century papers are available in the same way and will soon all be available. I do not have this facility because my interest now lies mainly in Notts cricket. Before about 2004, I was against all pre-1800 cricket being given a status though some are more important than others. I am still ambivalent about career records because they are so manifestly incomplete and as anyone who has seen the papers will know, not all of the matches may actually have been played. M Blackjack has made an assertion my excitable colleague Mr Asquith has seized on - which is that cricket declined in the light of the South Sea Bubble. In fact in Mr Maun's view and I think MrCann's but definitely that of Mr Warsop, is that the imposition of Stamp Tax on newspapers affected the cost of printing and caused a periodic reduction in the size of the papers printed - they have sources for this. I believe that Mr Maun has some personal documents relating to this as well and to the famous 'third stump' match which is something people may have to revise in the light of this new material(letters). I do not have the time to alter the mistakes (some transcription errors and who has not done that) and the more speculative ideas on Mr Blackjacks site. He must always provide a meaningful source and in terms of matches played or otherwise, in my view, it is now Ian Maun's book which is now in two volumes.Peter Wynne-Thomas (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've raised this at Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft on the basis of the WP:DUCK test. The real PWT would not make so many errors for a start, aside from coming into CRIC on the run with the same old tales that we have heard so often from "the excitable Mr Asquith" who is of course the real Daft. As Johnlp has suggested WP:AGF on this occasion, I think CRIC members should contribute to the SPI discussion and say if they think WP:DUCK applies or not. In the unlikely event that it is the real PWT, I will apologise to him; but I am confident that it is Asquith/Daft who should be apologising to PWT and I wonder if his action here contravenes WP:BLP in some way?
 * As it happens, I've spoken to someone in the ACS who has told me that the second volume of Maun's book does confirm the reference to the match in 1728 in the first volume is an error (it's in the errata), so the article can now be corrected because we have a reference from a reliable informant. And on the subject of the ACS, which Asquith/Daft is always banging on about, I understand he isn't even a member let alone a so-called "representative". My informant tells me that no one in the ACS would condone Daft's behaviour on this site. I'll leave the above posts here for now until the SPI has been concluded although that doesn't stop anyone else from deleting them if they wish.
 * You may also recall that, according to Daft's earlier rantings on the matter, Maun's book is supposed to be the definitive error-free source that supersedes Buckley, Waghorn, Ashley-Cooper, Haygarth, etc. and yet here we are with an apparently sizeable errata section in the second volume. The book is very good and is worth citing in some cases, especially where he has found lost data, but for the most part the older sources are sound and Maun simply provides some additional information. Jack | talk page 20:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As the one substantive edit that has been made by this user so far appears to be acknowledged as a correct one, I do not see why WP:AGF is not being applied. This project should be merciless to vandals and those that perpetrate personal attacks, but welcoming and generous to those who are willing to make a real contribution. Johnlp (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The key wording in WP:DUCK is: "The Duck Test does not apply in non-obvious cases. Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others". I would contend that the writing style here, the numerous errors, the subject-matter, the arguments raised and the frequent references to myself and my site, especially the off-tangent reference to the South Sea Bubble, indicate that this case is anything but non-obvious and there is indeed clear and convincing evidence that this yet another attempt by Daft to make one of his WP:POINTs. I have shown a measure of good faith by not reverting the edits (yet) which I am quite entitled to do under the terms of WP:DENY. I agree that the edit he made is correct as I've pointed out because someone else has seen the book and confirmed it, but I had already recorded the likelihood of  the error myself. I could not erase the reference earlier because it was cited by several sources all deemed to be reliable, despite the day of the week error that I had recognised, and we had to have a reliable confirmation of the erratum, with which I've now correctly and tidily updated the article. The careless edit made by "PWT" in that article is further evidence for the duck test: an experienced writer like the real PWT would never make such a mess of it.
 * Please see the SPI and comment on the duck test there. Jack | talk page 20:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Peter Wynne-Thomas' edit to 1728 English cricket season was poorly formatted and therefore is evidence that he is a sock? Nev1 (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the other John. I can understand your past experiences having made you suspicious, but I haven't seen anything in the postings on this talk page to make me think that it isn't the real PWT. What's been written doesn't have the intemperance that's characteristic of Daft's contributions and seems more knowledgeable. PWT may be an experienced editor, but he isn't an experienced Wiki editor, which takes a bit of getting used to. JH (talk page) 21:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Peter Wynne-Thomas has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. Can someone come on here and explain how this has come about and what evidence there is, please? Johnlp (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * has Check User rights and has confirmed the link. The CU evidence is rarely disclosed; the follwing is an extract from CheckUser.
 * Disclosure of CheckUser results is subject to privacy policy, which broadly states that identifying information should not be disclosed under any but a few circumstances. These include:
 * "With permission of the affected user",
 * "Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers", and
 * "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public."
 * Nev1 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, didn't say that the Daft and PWT accounts were connected, merely that PWT was connected to 5 other accounts used for disruption/harassment and those 6 have all been blocked.&mdash;User:MDCollins (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the edits of the 6 people - unless there are deleted edits that I cannot see - I can't anything wrong with their edits. They haven't edited in the same articles (or even the same topics), expect around 5 in a dispute resolution. It is perfectly fine to create multiple accounts in wikipedia provided they are not used for disruptive activities, and those six were not used for that. It is not proved that they are Daft either.
 * I really hope that we have not banned the *real* Peter Wynne-Thomas. Tintin 08:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, it looks like the right result was achieved, but I'm still somewhat uneasy about how it was done. Basically, the PWT user had not been disruptive and had made one, and only one, edit, and that had been accepted as correct. I'm content to punish the guilty, but I'd still rather start from a presumption of innocence, as is prescribed by AGF. Johnlp (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The latest Daft topics
I can understand the reticence of Johnlp and JH in at least trying to comply with AGF before resorting to SPI or ANI, but I would repeat what I said above about the DUCK test only being invalid if the likelihood of vandalism is "non-obvious". To those of us who have been persistently attacked by this individual, there was nothing non-obvious about the style, the syntax, the numerous errors, the subject-matter, the general drift of what we were reading and I think that by requesting both the DUCK test and the CU in such a case, we were absolutely correct. Please note that I did say above that I would apologise to Peter Wynne-Thomas if he should turn out to be the editor. However, even though he would have been new to WP, there is no way that someone of his reputation would be guilty of such sloppy, untidy writing and so there was no doubt at all who was at work there on that basis alone.

This individual (Daft) has maintained his petty vendetta for four years now and has added imposture and, perhaps, defamation to harrassment. I say "perhaps" because he created an article called John Leach (MP) via another userid and this has been speedied, apparently because of WP:BLP. Would anyone be able to enlighten me re its content? If so and you want to send me an e-mail, please let me know.

I notice that Daft keeps saying I denied the existence of the Maun book but my question on being told about it was "what is it?" as I had not then heard of it. Nowhere did I say it does not exist. This is the sort of lie that Daft routinely perpetrates in his invective dribblings. As for not deleting the match reference from the 1728 article, Daft insisted at first that Maun had excluded it because it took place in 1729, but when I saw the book I found that Maun had listed the match in both 1728 and 1729 so obviously I did not remove the 1728 reference, especially as Maun Vol. One complies with several other sources including the ACS (of which Daft is not even a member). Then we had Daft ranting on about the errata in Maun Vol. Two and, after I verified that with someone else who has access to the book, it turns out that Daft has finally got a fact right and so I have altered both the 1728 and 1729 articles to comply with this information. I might also point out that, through all of this farcical episode, my own site had the correct information because I had checked the day of the week on which the match was reported and could see that 5 August was a Monday in 1728 and a Tuesday in 1729, so I had already worked out that 1729 was the right year. However, if I had changed the two articles by citing my own site then there would have been a right old song and dance wouldn't there because, unlike Daft and his alleged chums, I am supposed to be an unreliable source.

If any genuine CRIC member thinks I did anything wrong in the way I handled the 1728 and 1729 articles, please give me feedback so that I can learn from my mistakes.

AGF is all very well if it is "non-obvious" but I think that when the likes of AA, Jenks24, Dweller, Moondyne and myself smell a rat and take action because we "know" that the "newbie" is a troll, then I think those who favour AGF should give us the benefit of the doubt. As I've said twice previously, if I am proved wrong about a suspected troll and it is a genuine newbie, I will apologise.

When I posted a message on AA's page yesterday, I noticed a previous mail to him from Dweller which was headed "YM". I followed the link and discovered that our old friend YellowMonkey left the site last November and has not returned, evidently because of having to put up with a load of crap that no one needs. Not having used the site much this year, I wasn't aware of this but, given the crap I constantly have to endure when I come on here to simply write about cricket, I entirely sympathise with YM and wish him all the very best in whatever he is doing now. Perhaps I should have stayed away too.

Finally, on the subject of crap, do we remove everything written above in Peter Wynne-Thomas' name because it surely constitutes an offence to him personally to be associated with it and must potentially damage his reputation? If we need to keep the posts made by the genuine members, we could summarise the Daft stuff to maintain context. Jack | talk page 08:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The John Leach (MP) article was correctly speedily deleted as it childishly attacked its subject. I could email you a copy if you want, but you don't seem to have an email account attached to your Wikipedia account. Nev1 (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sending a copy of the childish garbage, Nev. It isn't actually offensive but I can only assume it was written in a school playground by some moron who needs to grow up and start acting like a mature and responsible adult, preferably not on WP. Jack | talk page 19:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard to his editing, WP:DUCK is all we need. He's been indefinitely blocked and used multiple sock puppets to push his point. Anyone who detects his edit patterns (and particularly editing the 1728 cricket season article for instance) is entitled to call duck on it. It's not an abuse of AGF, more an attempt to protect Wikipedia from blocked editors and an effort to reduce time wasted by those who do assume the good faith just for it to be entirely wasted because (as is blatantly, transparently obvious) they are edits from a blocked editor. Block, revert, move on. In all cases. I'm very tempted to protect those articles that Daft seems intent on returning to in his various guises. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more, TRM. I would add Moondyne's advice last month to specify WP:DENY in the edit summary when reverting. Jack | talk page 20:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCK and WP:DENY notwithstanding, I'm still uneasy about some of this. The link between the Wynne-Thomas editor (and his apparent previous guises) and the Daft sockpuppets is surmised, but not, in the words of the blocking admin, proven; in any case, as I said above, the one substantive edit done by Wynne-Thomas, though clumsy, appears to have been correct. Let me pose a hypothetical question: or it is hypothetical at present, at any rate. Suppose I go out and buy the Maun book (both volumes) and, in my elderly excitement at having something to contribute to the early cricket pages, I forget, as I sometimes do, to sign in with my user name, so my IP address appears. At the current pitch of heightened vigilance, I fear I'd be investigated and blocked, even if the edits were actually correct. I think this would be unfair on me, and therefore I think it's also unfair on the PWT user. It may well have been that the PWT user was about to embark on a campaign of vandalism and malice; but I don't think you can anticipate that until he does (and if he does, then of course he should be blocked quickly). And to protect articles against the possibility that someone new might come along and change something seems to me to go against the whole basic premise of Wikipedia, and dangerously close to WP:Ownership. BTW, if someone would like to sub me the £125 it seems to cost, I'd gladly buy the Maun book(s); but for the moment, that scenario remains hypothetical. My unease, however, is not. Johnlp (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was self-evident that the PWT user was a Daftsock, so it was rightly indef blocked and had its all edits reverted. And for what it's worth, I have declined Jack's request to pre-emptively protect these articles, I will, however watch them for further sockpuppetry and act accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do sometimes fear that the 18th century stuff on here is becoming the personal playground of Jack, and any dissenting view will not be tolerated until he gives the new source his own personal check. This is contrary to the very principles of Wikipedia. I have my own particular area of interest/expertise, but have no trouble with anyone else coming in on "my turf" as User:AssociateAffiliate has done in recent times. Whilst whomever all these user accounts and IP addresses belong to is certainly going about things in completely the wrong way, we must be careful not to put anyone off who does want to start properly editing the 18th century pages. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While this is all quite interesting (and certainly shows the generosity of some project members), an indefinitely blocked editor cannot just sign up a bunch of new accounts and use them subversively. The community have indef blocked Daft, we are obliged to ensure he does not evade this block and return through the back door. This includes removing all of his edits, no matter whether they are accurate or not.  I'm pretty sure you all know this, but I just wanted to reinforce the idea that we must deny indef blocked users, or else what is the purpose of an indef block?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My worry is that the default position seems to be that we assume that anyone who edits an 18th century cricket article who isn't User:BlackJack is a sock puppet of Daft. As John says above, if one of us forgets to log on and edits an 18th century article, it seems likely that we'd be assumed to be Daft. Nothing against BlackJack, but he does stray very close to the WP:Ownership line at times. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a bit of stretch in my opinion since there have really only been two major contributors in that field, one of whom is Jack, the other was Daft. Of course, we'll act with due diligence when edits are made to those articles, that's what the project members should be doing, watchlisting articles that are percevied to be targets of indef blocked editors, and monitoring changes made to them to ensure the integrity of the whole project. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Cricket before the time of Grace doesn't attract much interest but if you look at the contributions to several of the articles, especially the biggest one History of cricket to 1725, you'll see that they have attracted numerous occasional editors who were interested in a particular aspect, the Flanders connection being a case in point. I have no objection to anyone adding genuine edits to these articles and I would soon be found out if I tried to revert an authentic editor. Daft himself was tolerated as User:KestevenBullet for nearly two years because Johnlp and Sarastro persuaded him to behave and act with positive intent; despite my reservations I agreed with this approach and it seemed to work. He was then absent for several months this year but came back in September when he reacted to a comment by AA on this page and started his personal attacks again. As a result of that and his subsequent behaviour, several of us (not just me) are applying WP:DENY when he is spotted. I will say for the fourth time now that if the real Peter Wynne-Thomas did join the site last week, then I will apologise to him for reverting his edit. But the facts are that it was a Daft ID because the FullerSomething edit (one of the six accounts) was signed TMAsquith, which is Daft. Also, I notice that MuZemike has now confirmed a probable link at SPI to KestevenBullet. I have agreed with TRM that we will continue to be vigilant re the early history articles using revert in first instance and then protect if it becomes protracted. Even if Daft is correct on some points, and I admit that might be so, he has ruined his arguments by making personal attacks and failing to comply with site rules. Jack | talk page 13:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've stayed out of this: mostly because it annoys me something chronic, and partly because I'm not really that bothered. I have some similar concerns to Johnlp and Andrew; I don't think that there is too much of an issue with OWNERSHIP, that is simply that few other people edit there. However, there is a risk that more and more, other editors will not be able to post there; specifically IP editors. While these pages need to be watched and policed, we need to be careful not to assume that any IP editor who appears on these articles is sock puppet of Daft. I understand the principle of WP:DUCK, but we need to be careful to remember that a Duck isn't necessarily a witch. This is an area of cricket history in which there is understandably little information, and the information that is presented can often contradict other sources. From what I can see, Jack does a pretty good job of sifting through this information and presenting the information as best he can. But, when other information, or other perspectives come to view, even those of Daft and his associates, I think we need to look at them. WP:DENY is all well and good, but if good information is being presented in a bad way, it is still good information. I think the key thing here is that we need to be careful not to shoot ourselves in the foot, and while we certainly don't need to tolerate the abuse, sarcasm and idiocy being portrayed by these editors on talk pages and in their edit warring, we do need to pay some thought to the information being given.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 13:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerns over the removal of potentially good/accurate information are reasonably well founded but most certainly do not just affect 18th century cricket articles. It's a pan-Wikipedia issue, and that's why we have Wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines.  We take a hard line with indefinitely blocked editors, but they are always welcome to present their cause for unblocking to Arbcom etc.  The thing is, they seldom do.  We therefore should not cherry-pick what an indef blocked user can and cannot add to Wikipedia, it's makes a mockery of the indef block in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We get trolls, vandals and hoaxers disrupting articles throughout the cricket project and all over the site. The differences with Daft are his persistence and his frequent interventions on this page. The information provided by Daft about the matches in 1728 and 1729 has been accepted, once it had been properly verified. First, Daft told us that his new source had the match in 1729 only but investigation of that source revealed that it lists the match in both years, so Daft was only half right and his edit had to be reverted to reflect what the source actually does say. Then he comes back with an errata in the second volume and I made an amendment to note the probability of a research error, pending later confirmation which I was able to obtain a day or so later. I think even Daft must agree that the articles are now correct re these references. But it is not just a case of accepting "good information" from an indef block (I've actually got no problem with that if it can be verified), it is also a case of updating the article according to WP standards including the maintenance of structure and context; and compliance with WP:V, WP:CITE and the one Daft just cannot head around: WP:PRIMARY.
 * Okay, an offer to Daft. Going back to what Johnlp said to you nearly two years ago. Put up or shut up. Get yourself a new userid, pick an article that needs work and develop it in compliance with site standards. You say you have access to these books by Maun so use the first one, work your way through the season articles from 1730 to 1750 and add anything of biographical use to the early player articles. I'll work with you and help you if necessary, as with how to formulate citations and bibliographical sections. Okay? And I don't mind if this paragraph gets engraved somewhere so that everyone can hit me with it if I ever break my word. Jack | talk page 15:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

100 wickets in a season, 1000 runs in an English cricket season, 1000 runs in English cricket before the end of May, 100 runs before lunch
Hello. We don't appear to have articles on any of these feats. They could be just descriptive of the feat, how it's changed over time for various reasons (fewer matches, slow over-rates etc) and that it is notable, or they could be comprehensive list-style articles. I wanted to link to the first of these for Jonathan Agnew's 1987 feat. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, the first two at least, but the titles are undesirable for me. But sadly I can't think of how to improve them, along the lines of "List of cricketers who have taken 100 wickets in an English cricket season" succinctly....! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Taking the 100 wickets in a season, the feat is commonly referred to without specifying the country, so COMMONNAME should probably apply, I'd have thought, especially as won't have to disambiguate (has anyone taken 100 wickets in a season elsewhere?) We have a precedent you'll recognise (!) of featured content that goes by the name of the thing, without needing to specify it's a list of people: England national football team manager --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, well prove to me that's a common name since I recognise your newly found expertise in that area... ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's 1,540 proofs from one source :-) --Dweller (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's "about" 1,540...! Funny because one of our usual RS goes for 150 and mentions it as Most wickets in a season in the County Championship.  I think a list of 100+ wicket takers would be mammoth given the vast number who have taken over 150... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We have list articles with more entrants, but I think you're right - it lends itself better to a Category once you get that many. But an article on the achievement would be nice. 1000 before the end of May and 100 before lunch might have fewer numbers and allow for comprehensive lists. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And also, it is important to distinguish whether that includes all first-class cricket (e.g. including England/Players and County like Tich Freeman's total of 304) or just the County Championship (still Freeman, but a total of just 252)... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you convince me that reliable third-party sources have categorically stated notability of 100 "before lunch" or 1000 "before May"?! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cricinfo has a list of all hundreds before lunch in Tests. Don't know if you'd be able to find a list for all first-class matches, though. Jenks24 (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wisden has a list in its records section of those scoring 1,000 runs before the end of May (divided into two parts - strictly in May and in April and May), which should be enough to demonstrate its notability. Though you could argue that 1,000 in any other calendar month should be as notable, it's never been viewed as such, perhaps because doing it isn't so obvious. As for 100 before lunch, then if it's in all f-c the list would inevitably be incomplete but even so very long, so I wouldn't favour such a list. The length of lists of scorers of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets in a seasion would probably be even longer. JH (talk page) 18:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd quite like to create the 100 wickets in a season article, so I can link it from Aggers article before it goes to FAC. I agree with TRM it shouldn't be a list. Any objections to it existing? Any improvements in title on: 100 wickets in a season? On reflection, even if it's been done anywhere else, it'd have the same name, so can go in the one article without needing a name change. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly has been done elsewhere, not least by members of MCC touring sides. Johnlp (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe Maurice Tate holds the record. It was a tour of India and Ceylon in the mid-1920s and he took something like 115 wickets. Jack | talk page 15:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well as I said above, is that 100 to include all first-class appearances or just County Championship ones? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My view would be all first-class matches, as CC-only would distort the list in favour of county stalwarts and against those who played Tests and other representative matches. Johnlp (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely all-first-class. One of the suggested titles is 1000 runs in May. This was first done by WG in 1895. He played in 7 matches during the month but only three were CC. Jack | talk page 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "1000 runs in May" has rather fewer entries than "1000 runs before the end of May", but does rather beg the question of why we don't have "1000 runs in June" or any other month. Hutton in 1949 scored more than 1000 runs in both June and August. Johnlp (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about all first-class matches, and I also agree that Wisden gives notability. I may be able to help with sourcing some of this as I have a (very, very) out of date copy of "The Wisden Book of Cricket Records" which only goes up to 1985 but includes every instance until then of 150 wickets (like CA), 2,000 runs, hundreds before lunch (separated into achieving it on first day, second day, etc of the match), 1,000 runs in a month (any month), and a few more. It also has records for the earliest dates each milestone was reached. Incidentally, it gives five bowlers who managed 100 wickets outsde of England (obviously not any after 1985). Would any of this help? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Immensely. Shall we begin with 100 wickets in a season? --Dweller (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, it's under way. Actually, we could have an excellent article about the immortals who've achieved the double of 100wkts and 1000runs in the same season, although not sure what we'd call it. Think the articles need to differentiate between pre and post 1969. Can't believe Hadlee did it twice! --Dweller (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Hadlee did the double only once (1984), but he took 100 wickets in a season twice.Johnlp (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An article already exists at Double (cricket) but could be substantially expanded. Incidentally, there is a nice article [here] about the year George Hirst did the 2,000-200 double. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An oddity in terms of 100 wickets in an overseas season is Bill O'Reilly, who in 1935-36 took 95 wickets in South Africa, having taken five in Australian domestic cricket before the tour to South Africa began. Perhaps someone can say whether this is the only case of 100 split between two countries; Tate's 116 in 1926-27 (when he also scored more than 1000 runs on tour) was in India, Sri Lanka and present-day Pakistan, but it was a single tour covering the Indian sub-continent. Johnlp (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just an alert about the list of hundreds before lunch in Wisden Book of Cricket Records (var. eds). I have copy of 4th edition at hand and some years ago went through it noting the entries which did not show batsman's precise score at lunch. There were almost 150 of those. Haven't taken up the subject for a while, but did investigate 35 of them. Was able to confirm 28 as true instances (most of them I was able to find exact score), however, there were seven of the 35 instances that should be removed as they never occurred - Grace (1872), Johnson (1913), Macartney (1921), Woolley (1924), Dacre (1935), Gimblett (1946), Woolmer (1975). RossRSmith (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If anyone's interested in "1000 runs before the end of May", this article in The Times might be of interest. Apparently only eight players have ever achieved the feat (Bradman did it twice) and the last player to do it was Hick in 1988. Jenks24 (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK
However I have deep concerns about the way these projects are being controlled. Why should Rambling man be interfering with a debate on this site. I will sign in as JemmyGrundy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.100.75 (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I'm a productive member of the project and don't take kindly to being insulted by anon IPs who disrupt the site. We also need to inform Arbcom that an indef blocked user indicated that he will register another account, evading his block once again. This needs to use the proper channels, not just Wikiproject Cricket, the ramifications are Wikipedia-wide. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * TRM is an admin and a long-term member of CRIC who has worked on numerous articles such as Don Bradman. He is therefore entitled to take a lead role in any debate which has implications for the project or the site as a whole. He is quite right about proper channels and, once the formalities are complete, I will keep my word and help you to get used to the site's rules and guidelines. By the way, if you see the Jem Grundy article, there is a photo of the 1859 team to America of which he was a member. Jack | talk page 19:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I also worked on other FACs: Paul Collingwood, Bill O'Reilly (cricketer), Adam Gilchrist, West Indian cricket team in England in 1988, (and the soon-to-be Aggers FAC) along with a number of featured lists. I don't really need to prove my editing credentials to a block-evading, indef-blocked disruptive and wasteful editor, but oh well....  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked editors are not permitted to use sockpuppets. They can appeal to Arbcom - a variation on the standard offer is the likely response. As well as TRM, I and most other admins would revert and block any editing done by sockpuppets. We have these policies for a reason. --Dweller (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And after being referred to as both a "small-minded nerd" and a "small-minded fascist" (although I liked being called a "sausage", I have to admit), this account has been indef blocked as well. Perhaps those who stand in favour of allowing this particular sockpuppeteer back in the community should take a glance at this kind of outburst and re-assess their opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I made "Jemmy" an offer that was far more than reasonable in the circumstances and he has blown it with those attacks on Dweller and yourself. If he would just be judicious and patient, as well as treating people with proper respect instead of insisting that he is right and that's the end of the discussion, he might find that people will take notice of him once they have had a chance to consider his points. For example, although I tend to just glance at his outbursts, I noticed that he was going on about the 1721 Stamp Act having a bearing on cricket at that time (or at least upon newspaper reporting) so I asked a friend of mine who is an Oxford-educated history teacher (now retired) for his views and he says it is a fair point. The Stamp Act did increase publication costs and so newspapers were reduced in size with consequent exclusion of certain subjects including sport, which had a low profile at that time. So, it is relevant and I intend to use it once I have access to my sources again (not at home presently). If Jemmy had broached the matter in the way that normal editors do, or if he had simply worked on the article within site guidelines without a lot of hue and cry, he would have had no problem (and neither would we). But, as usual, his approach was completely wrong and he has got everyone's back up.
 * However, given that I have taken his suggestion about the Stamp Act on board and have even spoken to a subject expert about it, I think that demonstrates that I will work with other people in my "patch" providing they respect the site's guidelines around mainspace editing. The relevant article is 1697 to 1725 English cricket seasons. I've done some preliminary edits on it to start improving it as it was written six years ago at a time when the site standards were much more relaxed than they are now. In fact, this article is a good example of "how things used to be" and I think it is safe to say that Wikipedia has matured a lot since then.
 * It's a pity he's blown it again in one sense. I thought Jemmy Grundy was a really good choice of name. What we really need is a Foghorn Jackson! Jack | talk page 14:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we shuold be discussing Mr Asquith's personal and professional life in a forum intended for the discussion of articles. Regardless of whether the above is true, I would appreciate it if the above was removed because I don't see how factiods such as Asquith being fired in 2006 will help the situation. Nev1 (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shows what a waste of space Asquith/Daft/random IP/KevestenBullet/FieldGoalUnit or whatever guise the lunatic appears in is. True he might be able to add something to articles, but given the manner in which he behaves on here, we don't need or to be honest want his type on here.  I'd say his professional background is relevant to illustrate what an arse he is, above all it shows how he has conducted himself in the past is exactly how he conducts himself now. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that his behaviour on Wikipedia shows that Daft Asquith etc is enough evidence to show that he shouldn't contribute here. If I saw the above list of points in an article I'd remove it immediately per WP:BLP and WP:V. That this is not an article shouldn't be an excuse to spread these kind of allegations. We don't need to drag up this kind of material to justify blocking. The accounts hounding BlackJack have made accusations without backing them up, we should not lower ourselves to the same standard. Nev1 (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On not lowering ourselves to Daft's standards, I'll remove it! But he has certainly had more than enough chances to come back and contribute in a constructive manner, particularly as User:KestevenBullet was virtually ignored to allow him that purpose. Of course, Daft will be back shortly I've no doubt! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And when he returns, I'll indef block every single account on sight. Perhaps some of the more moderate members of the project who had "concerns" over this sort of thing will finally understand what a drain on the project this individual (note: individual) is. We don't need this kind of disruption, we don't need to spend kilobytes of chat debating whether we should "allow this disruption for a bit until it finally snaps" (my paraphrasing), we need to revert, block and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Another new start at Yorkshire
Hope it's not another false dawn but the BBC have reported today that Jason Gillespie will be the new YCCC coach and Phil Jaques is returning to open the batting.

Read all about it.

I suppose last season must have been our worst ever. Relegated in the same season that THEY win the title!! Jack | talk page 16:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Spare a thought for Hampshire! With a coach who is tactless when it comes to anything more than 20 overs, who doesn't seem to be able to motivate or manage a team (from inside the dressing room I've heard it wasn't a nice place) and makes awful signings (to list but a few issues with Chalky-no-clue).  So some members attempt to take action, a coup d'etat of sorts, an attempt to protest White out so that god can fulfill his destiny and coach Hampshire, only the membership support that was promised never materialised... so Division 2 it is, even weaker than last season. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, AA. We'll both get promoted next September. Errm, who else is in this division..........? Jack | talk page 18:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't bet on it (well with Hampshire at least), I won't be renewing my membership. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter Roebuck
The Peter Roebuck page is getting a fair bit of attention after his recent demise (according to stats.grok.se he had more page views for the 13th and 14th than Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton). This page may be worth keeping an eye on as further details emerge. Hack (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

1st Test vs SA and AUS
Hi. I've had a go at expanding this section on the amazing game last week. Any extra help would be most welcome. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Although their next Test debutant Patrick Cummins has me scratching my head! 3 first-class matches, 9 wickets at 46.33.... really?  Nothing like being thrown in at the deep end. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sad news
Sad news. WP:ITN anyone? He was famous far beyond the realm of cricket. OrangeKnight (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Very sad. I remember watching him in the sixties and enjoyed his seemingly carefree approach and his ability to play a really entertaining innings, although he was a great professional who gave everything to his team. Although most people will think of him in connection with apartheid and a global news controversy in which he was the unwilling and innocent victim, I always associate him with Tom Graveney because it was largely thanks to these two and the support of a very fine attack (Len Coldwell, Jack Flavell and Norman Gifford) that Worcestershire was able to beat Yorkshire to the title two years running in 1964 and 1965. Bas was a great player who will probably be remembered for the wrong reasons. Jack | talk page 10:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to ITN, the article is nowhere need a good enough standard at the moment to appear on the front page: it would need to be a B-class article, which given the importance of his impact on cricket, would be difficult to achieve in time to get onto ITN.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 10:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Jack. He shouldn't be remembered only for the wrong reasons. He started his international carrier aged 34 and still average 40+ with the bat. By the way, do somebody have some material about his carrier as a coach with Worcestershire? I'm going to drive fr:Basil D'Oliveira to GA status in the next few months, but Peter Oborne's book is a bit light on the subject: the end date of his coaching carrier is not even mentioned. OrangeKnight (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sad indeed. I've requested they merge the affair subtopic in with the main article. Any opinions? S.G.(GH) ping! 11:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the subject could probably warrant its own article at some stage, although such a short stub is pointless, and should be part of the larger Basil D'Oliveira page.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 11:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The D'Oliveira Affair should have, to my mind, a separate article. It had impacts far beyond Dolly's life: Rev. David Sheppard tried to make things changed within the MCC, and it certainly counted when the Stop the Seventy Tour campaign was launched. It is the first of three SA's Test series cancelled. (To name just one, we have an article John the bookmaker controversy for a cricketing scandal that had far less impact than the D'Oliveira Affair). OrangeKnight (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Needs expansion then, certainly (though that, of course, is not a reason for a merge). I'll fix those references first. Bare URLs abound! S.G.(GH) ping! 12:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the affair warrants its own article. Not to have one would be a bit like not having a separate article on Bodyline but merging it into the article on the 1932-3 Ashes series. The affair was front page news in the British press on many days. JH (talk page) 17:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

-Just to correct D'Oliviera did not play in 1964 - he was undergoing the qualification process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.175.228 (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He played for MCC and Worcestershire in 1964, so seemingly any qualification requirements had by then been met. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In 1964, for Worcestershire he only played against the touring Australians and the two universities, which he was able to do without having completed his residential qualification for playing in the Championship. JH (talk page) 10:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, so the qualification process was only for the Championship. Learn something new about cricket each day :-) AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * D'Oliveira would have played Championship cricket sooner had Lancashire been interested in him: he was qualified for them because he played Central Lancashire League cricket for Middleton. But they turned him down as "just a Saturday afternoon slogger who could not be expected to make the grade". He had offers from Worcestershire and Gloucestershire and chose Worcestershire because he was friendly with Tom Graveney, with whom he'd been on a tour to Rhodesia organised by the cricket writer Ron Roberts. Johnlp (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about the old qualification rules. It must have been in 1965 I first saw him playing for Worcs although I think the game was rained off! Jack | talk page 11:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of a discussion regarding his age (1928 v 1931 v 1934) on his talk page. Hack (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)