Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vimalkalyan (talk | contribs) at 10:06, 14 May 2007 (centuries?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Vimalkalyan in topic Peer Review Request
Learn more about this page


Shortcut

West Indies "current squad"

on the WI page, the current squad is out of date. I would do it, but I struggle with tables badly and they always end up messed up. Here's the current squad to play England soon:

Ramnaresh Sarwan (captain) Daren Ganga Devon Smith Chris Gayle Shiv Chanderpaul Runako Morton Sylvester Joseph Dwayne Bravo Denesh Ramdin (wkt) Darren Sammy Corey Collymore Jerome Taylor Daren Powell Fidel Edwards Ravi Rampaul

I can't win!

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Heh... mindful of the destubbing activity going on here, I left a stub tag off William Adshead, since he only played 12 matches and nothing of significance was omitted from the article. Three minutes after I'd submitted it, another editor added a stub tag! I find that rather funny, but then I'm easily amused! Loganberry (Talk) 14:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps this WikiProject could lead the way in devising a "not stub" tag, for tagging articles that are very short but are likely not to grow particularly for reasons already well covered. How about Template:!stub? --Dweller 14:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
OK, I've started the template, + explanatory note, and its relevant Cat. I'd be grateful for input from some of our experienced stubbers, and for someone to help me with discussing this with the Stub WikiProject. --Dweller 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The idea is rather nice, but I'm not sure about the name - the ! symbol isn't going to be recognised by many people. Is there anything wrong with simply calling it {{not a stub}} ? Loganberry (Talk) 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nothing wrong at all. I based it on the !vote which I see used all the time round here! :-) I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting and I welcome support and opposition equally. I've used the template at William Adshead, but can I kindly and gently request no-one apply the template to any other articles until the stub sorting WikiProject has had a chance to chew on this idea. --Dweller 15:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've posted on the Stub sorting page, but will make two points here too. I think the "!stub" name is a bad idea, both because it looks too similar to "stub" and because it is frankly jargon (yes, people use !vote, but that's jargon too, and I don't like that either). Secondly, I think the wording needs tweaking: at the moment it says "unlikely to require expansion", which is a bit too definite. Maybe something like "unlikely to require significant expansion" would be better. Loganberry (Talk) 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Whilst we're talking about stubs, someone has reverted the "start" rating that I gave Alec Skelding back to "stub", on the grounds that the article does not have an infobox. Now I agree that an infobox is highly desirable, but this is quite a substantial article and it doesn't seem like a stub to me. Does anyone have any opinions, not so much about this particular article (where I plan to add an infobox to avoid any problem), but on the general principle? JH (talk page) 16:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
IMHO, stubs and infoboxes aren't related. It's a stub if there's more to add to the copy, whether fleshing out, adding more information or sourcing or whatever. An infobox is a nice addition to many an article, but there are FAs out there without infoboxes for goodness sake! --Dweller 16:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure about this idea. If articles aren't stubs, then just don't put the stub tag on them. I don't want to see various little tag lines on the bottom of articles declaring their exact status - the Wikiproject banners serve this purpose well. I'd like to see this idea proposed to the community as a whole - I think that the village pump is the correct venue.
It looks like William Adshead in question was tagged as a stub by a new page patroller - perhaps a note on the Wikipedia:New pages patrol talk page, with regard to adding something to their guidlines pointing out that short articles are not neccessarily stubs would be a decent idea? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've now made such a post to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. I suspect, though, that I'll simply be told that I can always remove stub tags, with an explanation in the edit summary, should they be added. Which is fairly reasonable, to be honest. Loganberry (Talk) 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The stubsort WikiProject directed me to the existing {{notstub}} template, which I recommend we use. It's invisible - designed just to deter those who edit the article to slap on a stub template. I've therefore happily nommed for speedy the new template and Cat. --Dweller 09:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know about that one's existence, but it seems much the best option. Now that the "new" !stub template has been speedied, I've recreated it as a plain redirect to "notstub", and made "not a stub" point to the same place. Loganberry (Talk) 14:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) - missing citations

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Hi all. The article's progressing nicely. I think that the addition of career world rating info in the form of a graph provided by the indefatiguable User:The Rambling Man is a great addition and a useful way forward for retired/deceased biogs, especially bowlers, for whom it's difficult to construct meaningful averages performance graphs.

Anyway, we're shortly going to be taking the article to Peer Review, but there are a couple of {{cn}} tags still to deal with. Help gratefully received. --Dweller 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can we cut down on the citations a little bit. If something is undisputed and/or can be checked very easily, and the addition of it does not add any value for the reader, it may be better to leave them out. Tintin 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It does seem that someone is being very picky. There's also a problem when you get a "citation needed" at the end of a sentence such as this: O'Reilly played little state cricket for New South Wales in 1934–35, and none at all the following season when he was selected for the Australian tour to South Africa. There are three statements within that sentence. Which one is the citation required for? Or are citations required for all three? JH (talk page) 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Even if the citation is required, I'd have thought all three could be covered by CricketArchive's Batting by Season summary, which shows pretty clearly how little he played in 1934-35 and 1935-36 (his one game in Australia in the latter season was for an Australian XI), and that he went to South Africa. Loganberry (Talk) 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I confess, it's me being picky on citations, I opine the more the better. One thing that came out of a peer review of Adam Gilchrist (I think) was that any statistical or POV claims should be cited. I'm happy to let it go slack but would prefer to see citations for claims. Having said that, if an article is adequate (in the eyes of FAC reviewers) to pass without such then so much the better (for the article, not necessarily for WP). Being picky is a key part of getting an article to FA, that's why WP:CRICKET has so few (13), in my opinion. The Rambling Man 22:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Pickiness is a good thing in that regard, I agree, but I think you can go too far with citations: I certainly don't think, for example, that we need to link to the relevant scorecard o CrickatArchive every single time a player's score in some match is mentioned! Loganberry (Talk) 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. But I'd rather overcite than undercite. However, once O'Reilly makes peer review and then FAC we'll judge it on the community consensus. One way or another we'll get this article featured! The Rambling Man 16:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree that such citation can look excessive; on the other hand, as a cricket geek, I rather like being able to look up any notable score with just one (or perhaps two) clicks. (I have been ignoring this particular article, as instructed.) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Mmm, maybe you're right. I've been experimenting with "overcitation" in Steve Herzberg and Adam Seymour. It's a lot more work, but at least they're not going to get labelled stubs now! Loganberry (Talk) 01:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The more time I spend here, the more I like what you've called "overcitation". My only criticism of Herzberg is that you should lose the spaces between the full stops and the references! Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Is there a way of doing that while still allowing the actual citation templates to go on a new line (which makes them far easier to read and edit)? The source looks a horrible mess without those newlines. Loganberry (Talk) 11:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Ah, never mind: I've now had a look at how the Gilchrist article does it, which seems to work while preserving clarity (unlike, say, Minnesota, a current front page article, whose squashed-up source is incredibly hard to read!). Loganberry (Talk) 11:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The output is more important than the source, of course. In one case, I actually saw the reference start a new line.
Anyway, it seems you can just put the <ref> on the previous line, and start the content of the reference on a new line, which is pretty nearly as readable. I've done that in Herzberg.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "I actually saw the reference start a new line". If you mean that the footnote number appeared on a different line from the last word of the text, then that still happens: on my own monitor, in Herzberg as it stands now, "English-born Australian cricketer" finishes the first line, and [1] starts the second line. Loganberry (Talk) 12:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's what I meant. This seems to be a bug in IE (at least, I think it's the wrong behaviour). In Mozilla they now always stick together. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, well. I was using another computer, running IE, when I wrote my previous comment; now I'm at home on my own (using Firefox) and it all works as you say. I wonder if that's been brought up anywhere on WP. Loganberry (Talk) 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Brett Lee

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think his persistent POV-ridden admirer has returned. Admin intervention not yet needed, but please do keep an eye on it before it returns to being a fansite. --Dweller 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Inaccurate Zimbabwean stats

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Judging by this Cricinfo article, we're going to have to take the stats of Zimbabwean cricketers with a pinch of salt now. Not that this surprises me in the least given the state of the game and the country there, but it's depressing nevertheless. Even where scorecards are available, there are inconsistencies all over the place (eg Westerns v Kenya Select XI in April) such as mostly disappeared from first-class scorecards a hundred years ago. Finding reliable and verifiable sources for Zimbabwean cricket seems to be becoming impossible. Loganberry (Talk) 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Read that article as well mate, the ICC should strip the Logan Cup of First Class status. Apparently Keith Dabengwa took 7 for 1 in one of the games but I like others question the accuracy of this and thus am wary of putting it on his Wiki page. Crickettragic 23:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
CricketArchive has this as its only record of that game. I can't see we can possibly call that thing a reliable source. Given my username I've always taken a slight interest in the Logan Cup, and had helping to improve its article on a list of things to do, but I don't really have the motivation now. Loganberry (Talk) 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It makes any Zimbabwe Cricket related articles very difficult to write - most written sources have a strong editorial bias and we can't now even rely on the scorecards. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Changing of Test/ODI/T20 Lists - discussion.

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Okay, so the basic story: I brought the List of Dutch ODI cricketers up to par with the other Featured Lists and nominated it two days~ ago. Nom here. At first I was a little put off by the idea off by the idea of changing the entire structure of the lists as outlined by the 2nd comment reply and the 1st oppose but now having thought about it it makes sense, and I do think we should change the lists. I'd be happy to go through doing them, but I'd like to see two things:
1) If the WP agrees with the changing of the system. I think the reasons outlined on the nomination are pretty clear and have a firm reasoning behind them. I definitely think this needs to be changed and I would hope there are no objections (although I would possibly expect some possible disappointment in those who worked on the lists originally as the standard they set up was certainly good), but if you do please voice as such.
2) A new template to use for them all. This shouldn't be too much work I don't think, and I do think that some of the stats should be kept (Batting average/bowling average for sure, definite possibility of total runs and wickets, slight possibility of high score/best bowling figures? The rest of it can almost certainly go). Something like the following, based on the opening of the Dutch ODI list, would probably suffice, say:

Dutch ODI cricketers Batting Bowling
Cap Name Player type Debut Final match Mat Runs HS Avg Wkt Best Avg
1 Gerald Aponso All-rounder v New Zealand 1996 v South Africa 1996 5 120 58 30.00 2 1/57 128.50

Thoughts, opinions? Personally I definitely think we should be definitely be changing the idea behind these: as it stands anyone can find the figures that are essentially copied directly from Cricinfo/Howstat/Cricketarchive. We should be trying to offer something different: outline who the players were, what they did for the team, their main stats (only), etc etc. AllynJ 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I like this idea - it's better to offer something a little different to the stats sites, especially when they do the job so well. I do think it would we worth adding a 50/100 column in the batting section, and a 5I/10M column under the bowling, as these are fairly "important" numbers. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think the proposal is nice as well: after all, all international cricketers have an infobox on their personal bio pages, wherein more detailed stats (catches, bowling style etc) can be found. Two points come to mind, though. Firstly, "Player type" is not going to be clear-cut for everyone: how do we decide who qualifies as an all-rounder, for example. And secondly, are we going to use calendar years for the debut/final dates? If so, then 1996 is fine, but in cricketing season terms that World Cup was 1995-96, not 1996. Loganberry (Talk) 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I was going for exact years, probably extending to full dates, personally. It was just a 5 minute prototype, and is certainly something that should be discussed. :) I do think the full date would be better, though. Re: All-rounders... Yeah, I'm not sure, especially on players I'm not particularly familiar (somewhat appropriately, Aponso is a potential all-rounder who I'm not familiar with). I'm not sure where to draw the line, really... It's hard to set standards, especially in the case of the Dutch. For example: I know he bats up the order and is definitely at least a part-time spin bowler, but I don't know anything about his bowling other than that. Judging by how many overs he bowled is a bit out of the question because often they won't be bowling 50 overs - if the opponents are chasing they would generally finish in at most 30~: the general idea of which puts defining strict numbers to each case out of the question. If anyone can think of a decent method I'm all ears. AllynJ 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Full dates would be excellent: presumably that would mean using the final day they were on the field, not the first day of their final match. (Mostly, though not exclusively, relevant to Tests.)
As far as roles go, another point to consider is that there are a large number of cricketers whose role has evolved over their career. Loganberry (Talk) 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Re: the first point, I would think the day they actually made their debut and the day they actually played their last match wuold be most relevent, eg the first day of the first test and the last day of their last test (for debut and final match respectively). Fair point for the other part... To be fair, I don't know of anyone who has gone from batsman to bowler over their career, rather from batsman to all-rounder: in which case they should be classed as an all-rounder. AllynJ 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's not at all common, granted, but I do remember writing an article for a Worcestershire player from long ago (not an international) who didn't bowl at all in his first few seasons but by the end of his career was a specialist bowler with little success at batting. Annoyingly, I can't for the life of me recall who it was. Loganberry (Talk) 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think putting their roles is a bad idea. When we had categories for roles, everyone wanted to imply that their favourite players were all rounders. There are no clear boundaries. (Is Tendulkar an all-rounder, for example? What about Gillespie??). Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we could have batting type and bowling type (eg RHB | SLA) instead? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I've made an updated table. Have removed the player type column and replaced it with Batting style/Bowling style (although I think the name of the batting style column could be changed, really... right and left handed batting aren't really styles, after all). There are notes for Mat, HS, 50, 100, 5I, 10M that would be linked in a {{reflist}} at the bottom of the page to clear up any ambiguity (we're aiming to educate those who may or may not know much of anything about the game after all). Looks good if you ask me.

One question: should bowling style for spinners be LB and OB or LS and OS? Ie Leg Break and Off break vs Leg spin and Off spin. I'm leaning towards the first, since it's the style they actually delivered, but I'm not sure. This is also the method generally used on the player's infobox on their page. Also, worth distinguishing between RM, RMF, RFM, RF bowlers in their row? Ie Shane Bond would be RF, Jon Lewis would be RM, Corey Collymore RMF, etc etc.

Dutch ODI cricketers Batting Bowling
Cap Name Batting style Bowling style Debut Final match Mat [1] Runs HS [2] Avg 50 [3] 100 [4] Wkt Best Avg 5I [5] 10M [6]
1 Gerald Aponso RHB OB v New Zealand - February 17, 1996 v South Africa - March 5, 1996 5 120 58 30.00 1 0 2 1/57 128.50 0 0

Any further thoughts? Hoping to go forward with changing the Dutch list in the next day or so if not. :) AllynJ 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I really, really don't like the use of "LB", etc. Leg spin bowlers, for example, bowl many more deliveries than leg breaks! JPD (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I would put the 50/100 and 5I/10M in the same column as below (it saves a bit of space and I think its a bit more conventional) but thats just a minor thing.

Dutch ODI cricketers Batting Bowling
Cap Name Batting style Bowling style Debut Final match Mat [7] Runs HS [8] Avg 50 / 100 [9] Wkt Best Avg 5I / 10M [10]
1 Gerald Aponso RHB OB v New Zealand - February 17, 1996 v South Africa - March 5, 1996 5 120 58 30.00 1 / 0 2 1/57 128.50 0 / 0

I don't see any problem with the use of "LB" etc, you could just as well argue that RF doesn't do justice to the bouncers, yorkers, swing, seam, etc that a fast bowler produces. Other than that, looks good to me! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

But that's the point! Why use a very general "RF" as the description for fast bowlers, but specify a particular type of delivery as the description for a leggie? Fast bowlers may bowl swing, seam, bouncers, yorkers; leg spin bowlers may bowl leg breaks, googlies, etc, but a "leg break bowler" would be nearly as rare as a "bouncer bowler". JPD (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, the summaries in the Playfair Cricket Annual use LBG (leg-break/googly); they do not use "LS"! Loganberry (Talk) 11:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would suggest that you don't need "10 wickets in match" for ODI lists. :-) Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Would an "overs" field, or an "overs per match" field be helpful? I know it doesn't sound all that important, but I think it might be advantageous for those people who want to see what kind of player this was at a glance. Sam Vimes | Address me 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Update: I have finished updating List of Dutch ODI cricketers to the new style. I changed a few things (ie adding background colour for those who have retired/aren't playing for the national team anymore, with a specific criteria for when people should be greyed out). Basic template I am now recommending to be used for ODI matches is as follows:

Dutch ODI cricketers Batting Bowling
Cap Name Batting style Bowling style [11] Debut Final match [12] Mat [13] Runs HS [14] Avg 50 / 100 [15] Wkt Best Avg 5I [16]
1 Gerald Aponso RHB OB v New Zealand - February 17 1996 v South Africa - March 5 1996 5 120 58 30.00 1/0 2 1/57 128.50 0
11 Bastiaan Zuiderent RHB RM v New Zealand - February 17 1996 v Scotland - March 22 2007 29 548 77* 21.92 4/0 - - - -

(Abridged to show background colour changes.) Added a few different notes within ref tags from the older versions. A Test match list should look like:

Dutch Test cricketers Batting Bowling
Cap Name Batting style Bowling style [17] Debut Final match [18] Mat [19] Runs HS [20] Avg 50 / 100 [21] Wkt Best Avg 5I/10M [22]
1 Gerald Aponso RHB OB v New Zealand - February 17 1996 v South Africa - March 5 1996 5 120 58 30.00 1/0 2 1/57 128.50 0/0
11 Bastiaan Zuiderent RHB RM v New Zealand - February 17 1996 v Scotland - March 22 2007 29 548 77* 21.92 4/0 - - - -/-

(Note: data isn't accurate, is just copied over from ODI list for continuity to see how it changes.)

I've left out Sam's suggestion of Overs/Game for now... The table's a bit wide what with the two date columns being a lot more accurate than before, I'm not sure it's particularly wise to put anything else in. Other than that it looks great. Thanks guys. :) AllynJ 07:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

David Stevens (cricketer)

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Here we have a mystery. The article's content seems to be identical to that for David Sales - date and place of birth, teams played for, even the Cricinfo article used as the reference, all seem to be for Sales. Cricinfo doesn't seem to have any record of a cricketer called David Stevens. I wonder if someone somehow created the article using the wrong name, putting Stevens when they meant Sales. JH (talk page) 18:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Both David Stevens (cricketer) and David Sales were created by User:Gardar Rurak on the same date. I've asked the contributor to come here and comment. It is a bit of a mystery. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is a very minor (one f-c, one List A) South African cricketer by the name of David Stephen (PH and no terminal S) but I don't imagine that he is relevant to what's happened here. Loganberry (Talk) 22:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think I have solved the mystery. Several pages link to David Stevens, and all seem to actually be referring to Darren Stevens (cricketer). So fix those links, and speedy-delete David Stevens (cricketer). Andrew nixon 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
At the time of writing, David Stevens (cricketer) still exists. Can it be speedy nominated, and if so under what criterion? Loganberry (Talk) 11:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I did most but not all of the links last night (they were all Darren Stevens) and will finish tonight. Then I'll prod it. Johnlp 11:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I had a look this morning, found two and did those. I don't think there are any more in articles, as opposed to in people's User pages. JH (talk page) 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Still at least one, according to What Links Here on the David Stevens page. I'll do it now. Johnlp 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Later: Done. Johnlp 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

An IP editor has just replaced[1] all of the cricinfo.com links in the List of Men's Twenty20 International games table with links to www.thetwenty20cup.co.uk. Two comparative links are old and new. The the new link does have more advertising (and cricinfo does have some). There has been a strong tradition at WP:CRIC of using cricinfo, but is that an argument for continuing to do so? Are we opening a can of worms in allowing (comparatively) advertising heavy sites in place of others with less so? What do others think? —Moondyne 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, on a closer look, the new one appears to be a straight copy of cricinfo. —Moondyne 09:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
As long as they work, the site gives the right information, and there's no edit wars, I don't really see any point in favouring one site over another. Makes people think we're not trusting Cricinfo on everything, either. :) Sam Vimes | Address me 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) at Peer Review

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Contributions welcomed. Let's keep this moving to FA. --Dweller 11:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

RfA

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Dweller had accepted a nomination for adminship. —Moondyne 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pervez Mir

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[2] Tintin 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A new template for First Class matches - Template:Test match

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Okay guys, I gave myself a new project to create a new version of Template:First Class Matches. The current creation, I feel, is pretty horrid and having to resort to substituting it in to pages was a real pain. I got around to reading up on parser functions and have created a new template: Template:Test match, complete with full documentation to be found at Template talk:Test match. I'm quite proud of it, to be honest, even if the usage might be somewhat limited. Any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks. :) AllynJ 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks a lot better than the original effort - not sure whether I made it or not, think I might have done (which is the way wikipedia works, of course). Especially like that you can actually ignore one of the fields now, and that it's a lot more flexible.
A suggestion: maybe rename the fields, though? I think "score1x1" would be more easily understood if it were "score-team1-inns1 =" - yeah, it's more typing, but people are going to copy and paste the template anyway. I see that an error did already creep up in the example ('twas Bermuda in their second dig who made 19/2, not Kenya) Sam Vimes | Address me 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and a lot of the drawbacks you list (such as lack of standardisation of player names, umpire nationalities, etc.) are actually a requirement of well-working templates. The original One-day International template (which I definitely made *embarrassed*) was too much of a straitjacket. Hopefully this will be easier. Sam Vimes | Address me 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks on both accounts, Sam. I wasn't exactly sure how to have the variables named in the first place, and went for the first thing that seemed comprehensible in my mind. :)
Changed the documentation too to note the fact those things are actually good things: I've kept them in the drawbacks though, as that's where readers may see them originally. AllynJ 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
How does one handle the situation of more than one player sharing the highest score or best bowling in a single innings? I can't work it out. Loganberry (Talk) 00:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Either use "<br/>" to separate them, or alternatively use "JA Rudolph and GC Smith" (which has the disadvantage of splitting players if they make the column too wide) Sam Vimes | Address me 00:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
"<br/>" is better, because the "and" version necessitates doing the same in the number of balls faced section. Loganberry (Talk) 15:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just adjust the new one into the old one like it was done to Template:Limited Overs Matches during the world cup, so it works with both the old keys and the new keys. This way we don't have to go through the pain of changing the keys for all the articles with the old key. Also, I don't really like the current key of the new one, just make it simple like score-T1-I1 instead of long score-team1-inns1 which is harder to remember while the former isn't hard to figure out or remember is the user used the template before. We don't need detailed keys.--THUGCHILDz 01:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think score-team1-inns1 is fine - it's hardly long, and you shouldn't be typing it out much anyway, and there's no ambiguity to it.
The coding for merging the two is beyond what I can do currently. Bare in mind I only learnt how to do parser functions today and I think even doing this much is a bit of an accomplishment. :p The Limited overs one's coding is INCREDIBLY messy, to the point where I was struggling to understand anything that was going on with it when taking a look at it. And to be honest I really think it's sufficient as it stands... Not sure. I don't think learning how to merge them is my next priority anyway, really; I've got an idea in mind but I'm not even sure if it's possible so that's what I'm looking in to next. AllynJ 01:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

On this subject, I've always found the idea of listing the one best batsman in the innings and the one best bowler (not zero or two) rather restrictive. That's not what the press do, I think. If a team is bowled out for 70, with two bowlers taking five-fors, they'll list two bowlers and no batsmen. If a team scores 700 for 2 declared, they might list three batsmen who scored centuries and no bowlers — listing a bowler who took 1 for 120 just because the other wicket taker conceded 150 is silly. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It does have the advantage of being objective, though. I suppose we could list all centuries and all four-fors or better - as mentioned, it's not a problem with the new template Sam Vimes | Address me 10:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rating Articles "A" for quality

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can any individual rate an article as an "A"? I thought that for a "GA" rating there was a process that had to be gone through, and therefore that "A", being a higher rating, would also have to go through a similar process. The reason I ask is because Australian cricket team in England in 1902 has just been given an "A". I agree that the article merits it, BTW. JH (talk page) 15:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's no process like there is for GA or FA, but I suppose by rating an article as "A" you are implying that it would pass GA if it was put forward. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Merging articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How does one go about the above? I'm a bit new to all this semi-bureaucratic stuff. Found Mehrab Hossain Junior and Mehrab Hossain Jnr - same person (as opposed to Mehrab Hossain who is a different person), two seperate articles, bit unnecessary. Combine all the information in to one and then replace the other with a redirect? I'm not sure. Thanks. AllynJ 21:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep, in the immortal words of Mr Punch, that's the way to do it! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Plus points for the reference, and thank you. :) AllynJ 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Did Armstrong really ever bowling fast-mediums?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The reference to him bowling with both a legspin and fast-medium action may be erroneous. Can anyone cite an instance of the Big Ship bowling anything other than legspin? Robertson-Glasgow 07:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A very quick look didn't come up with anything. What was clear was that in his early career, at least in Tests, he was primarily a middle-order batsman who didn't bowl very much. When he did get on, he was normally the fifth bowler used. A notable exception was at Headingley in 1905, when he opened the bowling. But spinners sometimes did do that back then, so it doesn't really tell us anything about his method. JH (talk page) 09:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Who's Who of Cricketers says: "originally fast medium right-arm, but by 1905 leg-break, bowler" Nigej 10:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mostly another collaboration between Dweller and me. I've been bold and moved Bill O'Reilly over to featured article candidate. I'd love to have the support (or further comments) of the project, you can add words here. Thanks! The Rambling Man 11:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Peer Review Request

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Hi., i created a List page - List of ODI Awards for Sachin Tendulkar. I request that peer review is done on the article so that it can be submitted for FL candidature. Link: 1. Kalyan 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can see that you've put a lot of work into this, and it's a very polished piece of work. But I confess that I'm a little uneasy at the idea of having lists for achievements of individual cricketers. Whilst accepting that Tendulkar probably has more ODI awards than any other cricketer, if we start down that road then where is it going to end? JH (talk page) 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
i appreciate your concern. i originally had these lists in the main page of Sachin Tendulkar thus bloating the size of the page to over 60 KB. At that time, i moved the list of ODI awards to a seperate page. If i see a lot of people requesting a merge with Tendulkar's wiki page, i will do the same.
As per your question, valid one at that - i think we can set the min. no of awards (lets say 25 for kickstarting a discussion) for having a seperate LIST page. Thus we might have around 5-10 cricketers who will have a list page. The benefit with the list page is that it will reduce the size of the main page. Would welcome your comments.
Kalyan 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with JH, I don't think it's a good idea of having separate lists/articles for individual cricketers. Wouldn't it be possible to merge into Sachin Tendulkar's article? I see that you put good work into it but if you're interested it would be possible to try get his main article into an FA instead of the list. Good work though!--THUGCHILDz 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
For the first part, see response above.
On taking Tendulkar to FA level, i have already worked in adding quite a bit esp on areas like business interests etc. I am hesitant to touch his international career section as it needs quite a bit of effort to summarize his 18 year career. give me a month to bring the content in his international career section to FA level material or better still we can have a collaboration on it.Kalyan 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You've made some good points. With regard to the length of the main Twndulkar article, I appreciate that there is pressure to keep articles as short as possible, but ideally their lengths should be governed by the importance of the subject and by the amount of information that needs to be put across, rather than by an artificial limit. JH (talk page) 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well I don't think it's a good idea to have achievement separate articles/lists, which the MOM and MOS award pages would be. Instead of going into detail about the matches where he got the awards we could simply put that he won 13 MOS and 53 MOM in his career, 8 in world cup matches, 5 in tournament finals and 5 in games that India lost. So I don't think it's a good idea to have trivia articles/lists.--THUGCHILDz 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I disagree that the list of MoS and MoM awards are trivia material. i think they are accomplishments and needs to be added the same way. i refered the article of Adam Gilchrist and found that the FA article does have a detailed list of MoM & MoS awards of both test and ODI cricket. As i stated earlier, i am OK with moving it to the main page of Sachin Tendulkar if that is the overall agreement in the forum. Kalyan 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I didn't mean trivia as in unimportant material but as in giving credit to the achievements etc,(I just cant think of the word I'm intending and trivia was the wrong word).--THUGCHILDz 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, problem noted, with so many MOTM and MOTS awards, the Tendulkar article would become massive. On its own, a list article would be a dangerous precedent. Tendulkar should be pushed to FA, regardless of the outcome of this discussion (he's more than worthy), but how we handle all the awards is difficult. I would suggest pushing Sachin to FA, keep the award list but don't try to make it an FL. The Rambling Man 19:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Makes me wonder how we should handle the list of centuries of Tendulkar in ODI (41) and tests (35)? That is going to wreak havoc to the size of the article. Kalyan 10:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

WP Cricket template

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

It's a bit late now to suggest it, but it would be very useful if the WP Cricket template had a "current" parameter which could be set to "yes" for current players, with an appropriate associated category. Then one would be able to see at a glance which players' articles needed updating to reflect their recent achievements. JH (talk page) 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Obvious question: how do you define "current"? Loganberry (Talk) 22:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
There's an "attention" variable, which is used in similar circumstances to what you're suggesting (eg: Talk:West Indian cricket team in England in 2007). Not sure on whether anything more is really necessary, to be honest. I appreciate the category may also be used for articles that are just in a bad state but I don't think that mixing the two is such a bad idea that splitting them is a necessity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AllynJ (talk • contribs) 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC).Reply
By "current", I whosetheir articles will need updating periodically. I don't think that "attention" will quite do what I had in mind, which wasn't to flag articles for immediate action but to act as a reminder that periodic updating will be necessary. Obviously once a player retires, the "current" parameter would need to be removed or set to "no". JH (talk page) 09:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is the {{CricketWatch}} thing in the template? If not, should it be in the template because not all cricket articles have (though incorrectly) have the cricket categories but may have the WP Cricket template.--THUGCHILDz 00:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ Matches Played.
  2. ^ Highest score. An asterisk signifies that the batsman was not out.
  3. ^ Half centuries made.
  4. ^ Centuries made.
  5. ^ 5 wickets in one innings.
  6. ^ 10 wickets over both innings.
  7. ^ Matches Played.
  8. ^ Highest score. An asterisk signifies that the batsman was not out.
  9. ^ Half centuries and centuries made.
  10. ^ 5 wickets in one innings and 10 wickets over both innings.
  11. ^ Lists 'Wk' for a Wicket-keeper instead of bowling style where applicable.
  12. ^ Where a player has yet to retire, latest match is listed.
  13. ^ Matches Played.
  14. ^ Highest score. An asterisk signifies that the batsman was not out.
  15. ^ Half centuries and centuries made.
  16. ^ 5 wickets in one innings.
  17. ^ Lists 'Wk' for a Wicket-keeper instead of bowling style where applicable.
  18. ^ Where a player has yet to retire, latest match is listed.
  19. ^ Matches Played.
  20. ^ Highest score. An asterisk signifies that the batsman was not out.
  21. ^ Half centuries and centuries made.
  22. ^ 5 wickets in one innings and 10 wickets over both innings.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket&oldid=130747084"