Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket
|
/archive1 | /archive2 | /archive3 | /archive4 | /archive5 | /archive6 | /archive7 | /archive8 | /archive9 | /archive10 | /archive11 | /archive12 | /archive13
Names of cricket team pages
- (The first part of this discussion is copied from Talk:English cricket team. Stephen Turner 11:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC))
Myu view is that the correct title for this entry would be the "England" cricket team not the "English" cricket team; not least beacuse there are (or have been) Welsh, Scottish and Irish players in the side! PaddyBriggs 08:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- We had a long discussion about this a few months ago. I don't remember the reason for using nationalities, and I definitely agree with you in preferring country names, but I'm sure there was a reason for the choice. Stephen Turner 10:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
It looks a little odd. it does seem that it was decided that the adjective "English" or "Pakistani" or "Indian" is preferable to the country name. However in cricket parlance we always refer to "England" or "India" or "Pakistan" (etc.) and you will not find the adjective used as the descriptor of the team in any cricket record or reference books. PaddyBriggs 10:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually you do - on tours it's always said "Australians in England", "West Indians in Pakistan", that kinda thing. (However, I believe England is an exception - they used to be MCC and are now England?) Sam Vimes 10:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Sam. You are quite right that in non Test matches the convention is (now) that we refer to the "West Indians" or the "Australians" in matches they play on tours that are not Test matches or One Day Internationals (expect for the England touring team who are always "England"). However in Test matches it is always "West Indies" or "Australia" or "England"...The entries about the national teams are (rightly) all about International matches not at all about the touring sides. So I stick to my view that the correct descriptor of the teams is the "England" or "Australia" (etc.) Cricket team. Another reason is both grammatical and accuracy concerned. Kent (or Surrey or Middlesex) are "English" cricket teams but not of course England cricket teams. The only England cricket team is the one that plays for England! PaddyBriggs 10:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- What I meant was when Wisden, Cricinfo or Cricketarchive write about a team touring another, they put "West Indians in Australia in 2005-06". I agree with you, though, but I think we should go one further and align ourselves with the rest of the sports in Wikipedia - we have England national football team, England national basketball team, England national rugby union team, England national rugby league team, so I don't really see any reason why we shouldn't use the precise England national cricket team Sam Vimes 11:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am not sure this format is suitable for all teams. India cricket team is not the commonly used form. Tintin
- And "West Indies national cricket team" is wrong, of course. There are other implications in all of this. There is a category called "English cricketers" in which not all the names listed are "England cricketers" (i.e. not all have played for England) and some of the names listed are not English (e.g. Welsh). Johnlp 13:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- In cricketing terms, Welsh cricketers are English. Indeed, up to 34 years ago, Wales was England. The first point doesn't seem so illogical against this background. [[Sam Korn]] 14:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- But see also Welsh cricket team, whose history is slightly involved! ;) Loganberry (Talk) 23:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- There were also many cricketers who were not from England at all, but represented The British Empire. A good example was Ranjitsinhji, an Indian who played for England. Template:DaGizza/Sg 10:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirects that need fixing
The following is a list of redirects that should be fixed, and then deleted, since it is never likely anyone will type article names like this. --AllyUnion (talk) desk 10:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
<removed list for the purpose of What links here>
Should you like a bot to work on this task, please place a request either at my talk page or at my desk. --AllyUnion (talk) desk 10:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The redirects that were listed here are deleted or being deleted now. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Vegans?
I've noticed two new cricketer bios which claim the players are vegans — Martyn Moxon and Jimmy Maher. Can anyone confirm either of these? Stephen Turner 11:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Troll on Talk:Shane Warne
User 203.3.197.249 is making what looks to be trolling comments on Talk:Shane Warne, implying that people who edit Wikipedia should get a life. I suggest ignoring rather than engaging this person. -dmmaus 05:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think he's annoyed because I reverted his assertion that Warne is the greatest leg spin bowler in history, back to something less definitive. I agree it's time to ignore him though. Stephen Turner 10:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- He's also just asserted that Allan Border is a smoker. Is this true? Stephen Turner 10:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Even if it is, it's not relevant to the article. To say he's a noted smoker (whatever that is) implies there would be references to that claim. These aren't given. Reverting. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Edits to cricketers' talk pages
For a list of recent edits to cricketers' talk pages, see here. Stephen Turner 12:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
CricketBot
You may see a user called CricketBot going around editing some cricket articles in the future. At the moment, it's busy changing "test" into "Test".
CricketBot is really me in disguise. I wrote a bot to find common errors in cricket articles, but it only suggests the changes to me, and I check each one before saving the page. (You may have noticed me doing this under my own account before, but it turns out to be good practice to run it as a separate user).
You can see a list of ideas I have for future edits of this sort on CricketBot's home page. If you have any more similar ideas, drop me a note. And if there are any problems with the edits, likewise let me know.
Stephen Turner 14:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Stephen, great work your doing there. Having our own Bot on call will be very useful I'm sure. Another idea for your Bot in the section below...
Season styles (again)
I'm suggesting that we standardise cricket seasons to be (for example) "1971-72". Currently we have 1971/1972, 1971/2, 1971-2, 1971/72, 1971-72 (and other combinations I'm sure). There is a related discussion on this above, under =Style guidelines=, although that's specifically talking about article names. I am talking about plain text in the body of an article.
I see no reason to link years when referring to seasons, and I suggest that while the MOS seems to be silent (AFAIK) on seasons specifically (other than this) , I think a "-" (or en-dash) just looks better and is more widely used these days than a "/".
The other day I amended the Cricket Article Style Guide (on the WP:Cricket page to reflect this, without really getting confirmation that's what everyone agrees or disagrees with. I'd like to know if we can agree on it here. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I like 1971-72 in the title of an article, and 1971–72 in the body of an article. (The first is a hyphen, the second is an en dash). I'm not sure whether it should be 1971-72 South African cricket season or South African cricket season 1971-72, and Sam Vimes pointed out a separate Wikipedia-wide proposal for South African cricket season (1971-1972) (in parentheses, with the years in full). Stephen Turner 15:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think we'd better put our viewpoints in there instead of here - since it would be a bit odd for WP:Cricket to have style guidelines flying in the face of the rest of WP. Sam Vimes 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- That proposal is for naming conventions (article titles). I'm taking about content in the body of an article. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, never mind then. I like 1971-72 too, preferably with a link to the season involved (so 1971-72) Sam Vimes 07:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I prefer both years in full as per 1971-1972. Leaving the century out looks lazy and if you are producing a list by years it becomes disjointed when you are obliged to include 1899-1900 and 1999-2000. --Jack 08:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think articles quickly become bloated with useless numbers when you write 19 twice (yes, I know that is a reason for leaving out the third digit as well, but any article on a decent-length career will be inconsistent if the third digit is left out - whereas most will use the same system if the third digit is kept). Sam Vimes 17:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Sam's last point about too many digits with repeated 19s, and also with his view that we need the third digit. And I'm not sure I see the logic of having a different style (with a hyphen) in the title from that in the article (with an en dash, as per Stephen's suggestion above). "Keep it simple" isn't a bad rule to have, unless there are over-riding reasons for complexity. In this case, hyphens are probably easier to handle for more people. Johnlp 22:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm replying to this a bit late, but I like an en dash because it's typographically correct (in the sense of "conventional in educated publications") and because the Manual of Style says so. Not that I care enough to change hyphens if other people write them. Also it doesn't work in article titles because it's too difficult to type into the search box. Stephen Turner 20:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Recent updates on Zimbabwean players
An anonymous user 139.222.182.61 (talk · contribs) (which my IP locator places in Norwich, England with 75% certainty - but then it places me in Bristol with higher certainty and I'm in London!) has just added quite a bit of info to a number of pages on Zimbabwean players. No references, and the internet doesn't show it up as a copyvio. I have invited the user add references, sign up and join WP:Cricket, jguk 09:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Pakistani bios
I am fed up with reading Pakistani cricket biographies (and a few Indian ones) full of non-NPOV statements, and unsourced claims about their personalities. Most of the Pakistani bios read like magazine articles, not encyclopaedia articles. Some of them even have alternate sentences portraying them as heroes then villains. I know those people are fanatical about their cricketers, but it doesn't make for a good encyclopaedia </rant>. Stephen Turner 13:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- um...Ok. ;) At least they don't change the facts...or...[1] Sam Vimes 16:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Cricket in USA
An anonymous editor created the article Cricket in USA. Apart from the fact the article is very poor at the moment, I'm not sure what it should be called. Do we have another article already that we could redirect it to? Stephen Turner 08:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- United States cricket team, maybe? It's the best we've got at the moment, since it also deals with some of the history of the game over there... Sam Vimes 08:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- It seems to be about the United States of America Cricket Association. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I was looking for. Thanks. Redirected now. Stephen Turner 11:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Guideline for article inclusion
WikiProject Cricket participants have adopted the following guidelines for notability of a cricket person for an article in Wikipedia:
- has appeared in at least one Test, ODI or ICC Trophy final, as player, umpire, coach or administrator
- has appeared in at least one first-class or List A match as a player
I have a major objection to the above criteria in that they are too wide and allow far too many one-hit wonders and bit-part players to be included. In particular cases these guidelines go against Wikipedia:Importance, particularly:
- Note that an article should still be deemed inappropriate, and subsequently deleted, regardless of importance, if:
- 5. It is unexpandable (it cannot ever be more than a stub, and could never be a perfect article due to its subject matter - it may however belong as part of another article)
Remember, in most established cricketing countries even B league provincial/state cricket counts as first-class, and players in these games would hardly be recognised in their own country, let alone the wider cricket community. Likewise with players who are only selected for a few ODI's or Tests before being dropped — not an entirely uncommon occurence (except perhaps if they are notable for other reasons). It would also permit articles on recently selected players who may or may not yet make the grade (there are already some articles on players who have only debuted this season). If each of these are allowed there would be an explosion of short articles about obscure players and — in the case of players who have subsequently been dropped — no hope of ever expanding these articles to full length. The criteria for inclusion needs to be much stricter, and should perhaps exclude players who have recently made their debut or who have played less than X amount of matches. (I suggest X=10 Tests or 30 ODIs.) Zunaid 14:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Importance is not policy anyway, so that point is pretty much moot. What is policy is Wikipedia is not paper, which clearly states that Wikipedia can cover topics in much more detail than any paper encyclopedia ever can or will, which is why we have got space for these cricketing biographies. We've also got Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, where it states:
- Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.
- which would cover most first-class cricket leagues in the world. As for "Remember, in most established cricketing countries even B league provincial/state cricket counts as first-class". Only in South Africa is this the case - Division Two cricket in England has an established promotion and relegation system, so the teams are only at a slightly lower level, the same for the Plate League in India and the Silver League in Pakistan. I'll readily admit I haven't heard of Aubrey Martin, but then cricketarchive hasn't either, which means he hasn't played a first-class game and therefore isn't notable. (A better example would be Morne Morkel, with eight first-class games, although I suppose he's notable for bowling more no-balls than overs... [2])
- Side-note (trivia): Aubrey Martin was a noted left-arm swing bowler for Western Province, who eventually got selected for South Africa on an England tour in 199something. However he got injured before the first warm-up match was played, which put him out for the entire tour (he did not play a single match). He was never again selected, making him (AFAIK) the only cricketer to earn a Springbok blazer (I think they were still called Springboks back then) without actually having played for South Africa. As you can imagine, this issue is quite contentious. Zunaid
- Ah, [3] there he is. Martyn, not Martin. Assuming the anecdote above can be verified (which I'm pretty sure it can), then I think your vote to delete would be the only one on AfD. If anything, that should make the player more notable. Anyway, I think you're in the wrong place, and if you want to change the Wikipedia-wide policy you should go to the Criteria for biography inclusion instead. Sam Vimes 20:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- There's plenty that can be written about a player's domestic career, such as the articles on IL Bula and David Wigley show perfectly well. Just because something is obscure does not mean it's not worth bothering about on Wikipedia, as it aims to be the most in-depth encyclopedia ever written - and therefore, what should really concern people is verifiability and NPOV, which it is possible to achieve with these articles. Sam Vimes 15:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- International players can certainly all be expanded to a full article, as I already remarked at Talk:Paras Mhambrey, because they have domestic-level professional careers too. I wasn't sure about players who have played just one first-class or List A game, but the Wikipedia-wide policy Sam Vimes quoted above seems to correspond very closely to our cricket criteria.
- (As an aside, we do have a problem at the moment with this person who keeps creating articles with just date of birth, and number of Tests and ODIs. Frankly, I think it would be better if those articles weren't created. Many of them are grammatically weak too. But that's a separate question to the general policy.)
- Stephen Turner 15:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Coming to this slightly late as I haven't been that well... since I've written a number of articles about players with short careers (or who are young, such as the aforementioned David Wigley article) I have an interest in this. Specifically, I've recently been writing bio articles about the 1899 Worcestershire side, especially those who played in Worcs' first ever first-class game. There isn't really much to go on for most of them other than their stats, but I think nevertheless that they are worthy of a place on Wikipedia.
- I'll certainly grant that Test/ODI players are more important, though, and I would be aghast to see any Test/ODI player deemed "not important enough", even someone like the hapless Charles Baksh of Canada (one ICCT, one ODI, two ducks, did not bowl, no catches!). I think we're right to keep the main criterion a broad one (any f-c or List A game is enough), since I think any such player's article could be expanded from a stub, if an editor discovered the answer to the obvious questions: why was this player good enough for the team in the first place, and why didn't they have a longer career. Loganberry (Talk) 00:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
AfD
There is an AFD on Substitute fielder . No big deal, an obvious redirect.
South Africa vs Wales at rugby union is also on AfD. Tintin 23:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Which has nothing to do with cricket, of course ;) Zunaid 12:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- There have been similar AfDs on cricket articles. So the arguments and the progress of this would be interest to people here :) Tintin 13:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Shane Warne again
A user is still busy editing Shane Warne, apparently in a bid to see how fast the "Wikipolice" can revert it. It's fairly low-level, maybe once or twice a day, but it might be helpful for more people to keep an eye out for it. Thanks. Stephen Turner 10:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Heh. I just had an edit conflict trying to add this:
- Anonymous user 203.3.197.249 is continuing his campaign to make trouble with deliberately disruptive edits against the consensus reached on Talk:Shane Warne. Is it time to consider a ban request? I don't know the mechanics of how we go about dealing with this. -dmmaus 10:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- The person seems to have a dynamic IP. It would be better to have the page locked for a while. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is getting nastier than I expected. See Talk:Adam_Gilchrist for some more. This person (assuming there's only one) appears from several addresses in 203.* and 210.*. Anything which implies that I'm some sort of Wikipoliceman is from the same person (or a small group of people). Stephen Turner 13:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The troll added this line to Mark Taylor yesterday - He is also famous for his air conditioner promoting. Do the Aussies know whether this line is of any significance ? Tintin 18:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- He has done a series of ads for Fujitsu air conditioners, but I wouldn't call that a particularly notable aspect of his career. I don't think it's worth mentioning. He's also advertised a couple of other products that were no less notable. It's the same with Justin Langer's Johhny Walker ad, or Gilchrist's mobile phone ads. Simple promotional work with no real significance. If we add this sort of trivia to cricketer pages they'll just bloat with useless garbage. -dmmaus 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I reverted it. Tintin 22:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Domestic cricket
I'm shocked at the lack of content on domestic cricket. There is nothing on fringe Australian international player David Hussey, who has played for Australia A, for example. Is there going to be a profile starting on such domestic players?
At the least, key players such as captains of Victoria, NSW etc should be included. There was nothing on Darren Berry, who made an Ashes tour in 1997 and captained his side to a Pura Cup title. Surely such key players should be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerthat (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's pretty bad, yes. I think the reason the current domestic players are neglected is because there's currently so much to take care of on the project - profiles of all the Test players have been prioritised, for example, and we're still due articles on all first class teams in the world. It's definitely something that's under consideration, however. Sam Vimes 10:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Though, of course, Rogerthat, you'd be more than welcome to help increase our coverage of non-international cricketers, jguk 10:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I've added an article on Nick Jewell, but the reason I'm not working on it much at the moment is because I've got another neglected project that I basically maintain myself - WikiProject AFL Rogerthat 11:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Given the gaping hole in our coverage here, I have started a page (format copied wholesale from Australian national cricket captains). I've added a list of men's Test captains with results, but help to add a men's ODI list, women's lists, etc, and to diambiguate players, is welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Edits by a vandal (?)
Looks like 68.71.35.93 is a vandal, and someone reverted his changes including Trumper and Johnny Douglas]. But his edits in Douglas were correct (or atleast the half that I know about) and I reverted them.
He has also added a passage to Trumper - Interestingly , even though Trumper is best known for his prowess at cricket, he was also a very good Rugby player and he can lay claim to being the prime mover in the development of Rugby League in Sydney in particular and Australia as a whole. The vandal fighter has reverted this too and I don't know whether this is true or not. Tintin 22:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- That was a while ago, wasn't it? I'm pretty sure I Googled on it and there was some corroboration. Don't have time to check again now. Stephen Turner 09:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
List of sub-stubs
I've put a list of cricket biography sub-stubs up at User:CricketBot/substubs. These are articles of only one or two sentences which are so useless that they're in danger of being deleted. Many of them are also grammatically weak.
There's a depressingly large number of them at the moment, so feel free to come along and work on expanding some of them. Or if you don't feel that inspired, some of them are just redirects that need bypassing.
Stephen Turner 18:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Um - MJK Smith is listed as a 16 and VVS Laxman as a 17, but look at the articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, look at them without getting redirected - then they're 16 and 17 (which is what the bot picks up). I suppose they need to be struck through, though. Sam Vimes 19:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)