Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Images

Anyone playing cricket and owns/has access to a digital camera? If it is possible, would they be kind enough to take out photos of the cricket ball, bat, stump, bail, gloves, pads etc.? Nichalp 18:48, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I got pads, gloves, bat and ball. My stumps are not regulation size, so its a bit useless getting them. I'll try to do it this weekend, what kind of background is wanted? AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Grass or a plain background would be nice. No problem with the background, we can add any background later. Try and get a front and side view of the bat and ball. Nichalp 18:41, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Here is a list of the pics I have taken now, hosted at another server to save Wikipedia's space until we choose which ones to use, but here they are (you need to click on download to see the pic):

I was refused access to the pictures by the link - is there a problem? Brookie 20:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeh there seems to be something wrong with them now... The site said they will only host for 30 days, but it's barely been a week since I put them up. I'll try to find another place soon. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 22:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to access the images without any luck :( Nichalp 20:11, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
The site says "Do not share the above link, it will not work. Instead, give them the link you were given during upload". Over to AlbinoMonkey, again, I'm afraid - AM, are you able to give us that link instead? Alternatively, can you not just upload them to Wikipedia - we can always delete any that we don't want? jguk 20:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeh, the links I provided are the ones "given during upload". The link they are referring to (not to share) is the one where clicking "download" takes you. Smoddy said he would host them on his server - so I have emailed him, but he appears not to have been around for a while. I'll have a further look to find places that allow free file hosting... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 09:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you email them to me I'll stick them online. --Ngb 10:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Some are now online here -- awaiting copies from Albinomonkey of the ones that came out zero-length. --Ngb 19:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I've been having trouble with a virus on my C drive where the images are stored, that's what made them come out zero length. When I finally managed to attach them all to an email and send, I immediately got "failed" messages... It's a bit frustrating, I'll try to work it out tomorrow. Sorry everyone. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 22:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ball: (no brand new ones were available, but I should have some soon...)

Bat:

Helmet:

Left-handed gloves:

Right-handed gloves:

Pads:

Due to focussing issues with my camera, some have a lot of empty space around the object, but they are pretty big pics, so feel free to crop or change whatever you want. If you choose to upload any of them to Wikipedia, just insert {{PD-user|Albinomonkey}} on the image page. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 05:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For those who decide to crop the images, it would be nice to make the ball the actual size. (True to scale) Squash 21:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll try and modify the images in a week or in ten days, and put it up back here. Thanks albinomonkey for the images. Nichalp

Test matches in the 19th century

I've been working on this article and would like to work it up to featured article status. I'd be grateful for any comments/improvements anyone has. In particular, if there are any Aussies out there who know something about the subject, it would be great to add some more stuff from an Aussie perspective. Many thanks in advance, jguk 16:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any 19th century Test matches, but I might be able to get my hands on a book about the first 100 years of Australian cricket and have a look through it if it's any help. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have a book on every England Test player, if it helps. Smoddy | ειπετε 17:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It would be great if you could add something. I've just had Cricket's Colosseum - 125 Years of Test Cricket at the MCG by Ken Piesse delivered - which will help me add something on the games at the MCG, jguk 18:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Test" or "test"?

It may seem like nitpicking after such a comprehensive article, but doesn't Test match usually have an upper-case T? Stephen Turner 17:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think there are two camps on that one - see, for example, this google test. Perhaps the WikiProject should choose whether we have "test" or "Test" as a standard. (If we do, I'm in the "test" camp rather than the "Test" camp.) jguk 17:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am firmly in the "Test" camp. Perhaps we need a vote. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK the vote starts then.
Test -- AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Test --Ngb 14:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Test Smoddy | ειπετε 18:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
test -- Though still please comment on Test matches in the 19th century! jguk 18:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Test -- Stephen Turner 18:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Test -- ALoan (Talk) 22:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Test -- Nichalp 18:17, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC) (I believe it is a proper noun)
Test .. Squash 02:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, I can see when I'm outnumbered. I'll start using "Test" then. Just one thing, all the categories of the format Category:English test cricketers, etc. use "test". Unless someone knows a quick and easy way of changing them all to "English Test cricketers" and the like, I'll leave them there, jguk 19:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lime Tree

I have some matter on the lime tree that was "killed". Does anyone have an idea on what to name the article?

St Lawrence Cricket Ground Lime Tree
Cricket grounds in most parts of the world are devoid of any trees or shrubs with the exception of the two trees. The lime tree in St Lawrence Cricket Ground, home of the Kent County Cricket Club, England and another in the Pietermaritzburg cricket ground in South Africa till recently were the only two trees within boundary limits. Sadly, on January 12, 2005, high winds in England caused the 158 year-old tree to topple and snap.
Shots blocked by the tree were counted as a four. Only three cricketers have cleared the 90 foot tree to score a six. Middlesex's Jim Smith (1939) and West Indians Learie Constantine (1928) and Carl Hooper (1992).

Please add it in a relavent page. I am currently toooooo busy to think of an apt page title. Nichalp 18:21, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think it should probably be in the article about the ground, rather than a separate article about the tree. Stephen Turner 18:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since Kent County Cricket Club is itself just a stub, and there is no article on the Canterbury ground, I've added it to Kent County Cricket Club, jguk 19:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I should have said: I've moved it out to St Lawrence Ground. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


There are four batsmen who have hit the ball over tree according to Frank Keating.

"Every media outlet trotted out as undisputed certainty that only three batsmen had ever cleared the tree with a single blow - Learie Constantine first in 1929, big Jim Smith of Middlesex 10 years later and Kent's Carl Hooper in 1992. Not so.

This myth of three celebs must at once be scotched lest history accept it as fact. First to clear the fabled lime, four years before Constantine, was long-forgotten, breezily bullish Sussex amateur Colonel A C "Jacko" Watson, who in 1925 hit "Tich" Freeman not only clean over the tree but over the president's tent and the wide car park as well - and the lost ball was not found till the following spring, under bushes in a garden on the corner where Nackington Road meets the Old Dover Road. "

Source : http://sport.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,10260,1390182,00.html

I suppose Keating is one of the finest cricket writers around (or left). Can we consider this as authentic ? Tintin1107 22:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More thoughts : Btw, Constantine's hit was not in 1929 as mentioned by Keating. So much for my faith in him :(

AEJ Collins Featured Article Request

Hey guys,

AEJ Collins, the 13 year old schoolboy who made the highest ever recorded score (628 not out) has been submitted as a featured article. I'd be grateful for any help and input into this article you guys could make. :) Talrias 18:13, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Which South African flag should we use?

I was thinking of putting the historic cricketer template on Graeme Pollock but am not sure which South African flag to use (see Flag of South Africa). It just seems odd to use a flag for some players that they did not play under (and in some instances would never have seen), though I must say, I wouldn't recognise the red ensign used between 1910 and 1928, and wouldn't relish deciding what to use for cricketers before 1910. (Of course, this also applies to 19th century Australians.) jguk 21:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think, for consistency's sake, we should use the modern version for every player. How would many people recognise an old South African flag? It may seem a little odd, but it does make the most sense if we are trying to achieve some kind of simplicity to implement. I don't fancy doing the coding to put in another flag. Just stick the current one in. If people don't know, then they won't be bothered. If they do know, I can't see them being offended. Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 21:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I second what Smoddy said. Squash 02:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And besides, the current South African flag was not adopted until April 1994, well after the country's readmission, so many players will have played under both the current and previous flags. I agree that it's best simply to use the current flag. Loganberry 15:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

International cricket in South Africa (1971 to 1981)

I've just launched this article - would be grateful for suggested improvements.

Just a slight diversion for me: I'll be off to improve my Test cricket in the 19th century articles now:) jguk 23:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

I've nominated Test matches in the 19th century (to 1883) as a featured article candidate on WP:FAC. Any comments/support would be welcome, jguk 21:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cricket subcategories

I put the "Cricket subcategories" category up for deletion over on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion since I don't believe it fits in with the existing guidelines on how subcategories should be structured. Jguk and Pcpcpc objected streunously, though, saying they needed a complete list of cricket subcategories for further work on organizing them and would continue to need them for years to come. I think this need would be far better served by a list rather than a category, so I'm going to port the category's contents over to one and hopefully demonstrate this. What sort of work is it that'll need to be done over the next few years, so that I can try tailoring the list's structure to it? Bryan 01:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see that the work will take 'years' -- but I would strongly object to doing this in list form rather than category. It just introduces an extra level of manual changes for us to make, and there are really very, very few of us adding cricket content on a regular basis. Let's not make it any more difficult/bothersome. --Ngb 12:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But what sort of work is it? I've been told many times now how necessary this aberrent category is for the work being done here, and how much more troublesome a list would be for doing it, but so far nobody has actually told me what this work is. There are 265 categories currently in "Cricket subcategories", if each had been added to a list one at a time and Wikipedia had been especially slow that day so that it took a full minute for each one, that would only take a grand total of four and a half hours. This does not strike me as the sort of saved time that's worth leaving something like "Cricket subcategories" in Wikipedia on an extended basis. Bryan 16:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've asked here, I've asked on my user talk page when jguk brought the subject up there, and I've asked on categories for deletion, and as yet nobody has given me any answer regarding what this category is actually used for. Ngb apparently doesn't even believe my offer of help. So I'll leave you to do whatever it is you're doing, and check back in a few months to see how it's going. Bryan 00:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I believe your offer of help, limited as it is. What I don't believe is that you'll stick around keeping your list of categories manually updated for every category change that's made. Additionally, several of us have explained what we use the category for: I suspect a case of 'none so deaf as those that will not hear'. --Ngb 19:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Would you humor me one more time, then, by pointing out where this explanation is? The best I've been able to find is from one of jguk's comments under the CfD discussion: "This category allows me to check whether we have similar categories already - one just cropped up for me with a cricketer who played for Natal. Did we have a KwaZulu-Natal cricketers category, or should I create a new Natal cricketers category?" This doesn't seem like it could possibly be the whole purpose of this category, though, since looking under Category:South African cricketers is the obvious place to find such a category - and sure enough, there's the Natal cricketers category. He also said "What about when dealing with a cricketer who has gone on to write books, broadcast, get knighted and become President of the MCC? Looking at Category:Cricket subcategories makes it easy to decide how to categorise him." This doesn't make much sense to me since going to Category:Cricketers gives me a much better-sorted and -selected grouping of possible subcategories to put a cricketer into whereas "Cricket subcategories" is a jumble of every possible cricket category whether relevant to individual cricket players or not. If I'd been looking for category:cricketing knights in the "subcategories" list, for example, I would have first looked under K for "knights" whereas under "cricketers" it's mixed in with only 8 other subcategories and was easy to spot. I mentioned some of this in response to his comments at the time but perhaps I didn't go into enough detail about why I felt this was an unnecessarily difficult way to do it. In any event, these reasons are "permanent" ones that would require the category to remain on Wikipedia indefinitely (or until all possible cricket articles are written, which amounts to the same thing) so I would continue objecting solely on that basis if nothing else.
Were those really the only reasons this subcategory's being kept? Bryan 01:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bryan, whilst I welcome your willingness to help with the cricket categorisation, I would also ask you to recognise that you are unfamiliar with the game and the current categorisations. Please discuss what you are doing before making loads of changes. Also, please recognise that we are never going to agree on the Cricket subcategories category. Just respect that it's there and help maintain it - if you wish to develop other categorisation tools alongside this one, by all means do so.

On the specific issue of South African cricket teams, these have changed their names quite a few times. Personally I would not open up a Kwazulu-Natal cricketers category, but stick to the Natal cricketers category. These categories relate to teams, not to nationalities - so it does not follow that all cricketers in that category will be South African cricketers, jguk 04:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't respect that "cricket subcategories" is there since I still believe that it's in violation of the categorization conventions and haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise. However, since the CfD has failed to achieve consensus I'll just ignore it for the time being and see how it develops later. I don't intend to create any cricket categories from scratch, just categorize the existing ones, so that shouldn't cause any problems for whatever you're using that subcategory category for. On the specific issue of the South African cricket teams, I'm not sure what you mean - Category:Natal cricketers was already in Category:South African cricketers, you yourself put it there. All I did was put it under Category:KwaZulu-Natal Province, which according to the KwaZulu-Natal page was once simply named Natal. This seemed like a very reasonable basis for assuming that the one should be a subcategory of the other, if this is not the case then IMO there definitely needs to be an explanation of that on the Natal cricketers page. Is the Natal team not based in KwaZulu-Natal province? Bryan 04:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, BTW, I just stumbled across a category convention that IMO the "subcategories" category does fall under: Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace. What would you guys say to putting the "cricket subcategories" tag into the Category talk: pages of the various categories instead? That would wholly satisfy my urge to hide meta-information like this from the casual browser, since that's what talk: pages are for. Bryan 05:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with that -- it sounds like a useful compromise. Anyone else? --Ngb 19:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think I know what you mean, and would be ok with that - but would like to be sure. Could you demonstrate with just one category what you mean?

I feel that there are too many cricket subcategories. I don't see the need of classifying the same player as "Cricketer, England batsman, England bowler, England allrounder" and and so on. Nichalp 17:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

The same player shouldn't, I would agree, be categorised as 'Cricketer, England batsman, England bowler, England allrounder' since the last three categories should be mutually exclusive: if any player appears in more than one, he/she has been wrongly categorised (IMO). I would also say it was probably unnecessary to have a player categorised as 'English cricketers, English bowlers' or similar: he should just be in 'English bowlers', which should be a subcategory of 'English cricketers' and of 'Bowlers', each of which should be a subcategory of 'Cricketers'. --Ngb 19:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ian Botham for a start:
Category:1955 births, Category:English batsmen, Category:English bowlers, Category:English all-rounders, Category:Somerset cricketers, Category:Worcestershire cricketers, Category:Durham cricketers, Category:Queensland cricketers, Category:English ODI cricketers, Category:English test cricketers, Category:English cricket captains, Category:Wisden Cricketers of the Year, Category:Cricket writers and broadcasters.
I mentioned this a few weeks ago on Talk:Ian Botham. Some others disagree, apparently. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't see a need to have a categorisation by skill - I certainly wouldn't search by it, and at times the categorisation could be controversial, particularly if we don't label all-rounders as also being batsmen and bowlers. (For example, should Graham Gooch be classified as a batsman or an all-rounder?)
I'd happily remove the "by skill categories", so that instead of, amount other things, describing Ian Botham as "Category:English batsmen, Category:English bowlers, Category:English all-rounders", we would replace these 3 epithets with "Category:English cricketers" jguk 20:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Much better. I support the move. Nichalp 20:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
For what my personal opinion is worth, I don't see anything wrong with categorising a player under everything they've done (as evidence by Ian Botham's impressive list above). While recognising him in Category:English cricketers is all well and good, it doesn't necessarily tailor towards Wikipedia readers who may not be completely up to speed with English cricketers...shouldn't the encyclopedic entries be tended towards everyone, not just those who are familiy with cricket and cricketers? At the end of the day Botham's name shows up in a heap of categories, which is useful. If you were to go ahead and revoke Category:English all-rounders, Category:English batsmen and the like from all cricketers in Wikipedia, then what would be the point of having these individual categories? I don't think it's wrongly categorising Botham (to continue his example) as an English batsman, bowler, all-rounder, captain, etc because that's what he was. Same for, say, Zimbabwe's Tatenda Taibu: Zimbabwean cricketer, Zimbabwean batsman, Zimbabwean wicketkeeper, Zimbabwean captain. As for controversial categories (e.g. the Graham Gooch example, batsman or all-rounder?) a bit of commensense is needed, utilise the talk: pages and get a consensus, categories are easy to add to an entry...just my two cents anyway :) --Broomballcory 07:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary

I was having a look at wiktionary and found that is has a pretty good list of cricket related terms. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Cricket . As I will be busy for the rest of the month, is there anyone who could volunteer to add missing terms and fielding positions from cricket terminology and fielding positions in cricket into wiktionary? Nichalp 20:23, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Test cricket families

Hello. I've posted a new article Test cricket families if anyone's interested or got anything to add. - Ianbrown 08:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pura Cup/ING Cup

Two new articles added for you Aussies out there: Pura Cup and ING Cup. - Ianbrown 12:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cricketer categorisation

Hi, I noticed that you've all done an excellent categorising cricketers, and cricket in general! A very coherent and logical scheme that is a pleasure to browse through. I did wonder if Category:Cricketers by team will eventually have to be subdivided so that English, Australian etc teams are in separate subcategories (once all the Ranji Trophy teams get added it will be a very full category!) but I really have a query about categorising individual cricketers by era, so that contemporary cricketers would appear in the same category - that seems to be an alternative and sensible way of sorting them. "By decade" seems to be the best way to handle it - only a bare handful of cricketers would straddle three decades at international level. Since you seem to be "in charge" of cricketers generally I thought I would make the proposition here. Which format of these do you think would be best?

  1. "International cricketers 1990-99" (this sort of date format is used e.g. by Wikiproject:Aircraft)
  2. "1990s international cricketers" (I prefer this date format - shorter & more natural, though 1900-09 and 2000-09 look a bit strange. Nevertheless, look at 1900s on WP and you get the decade not the century)
  3. "Test cricketers 1990-99" & "ODI cricketers 1990-99"
  4. "1990s Test cricketers" & "1990s ODI cricketers"

Formats 3 and 4 would fit better into your (logical) categorisation split between Test and ODI cricketers, but since so many cricketers would be in both, for two different decades, it runs the risk of "overcategorisation". Formats 1 and 2 wouldn't result in the same amount overcategorisation, but don't easily fit into the Test/ODI cricketer split (and it does seem relevant - IMO it would be nice to have at least one category in which both Nasser Hussain and Steve Waugh appeared as contemporaries, but Tim de Leede and Bas Zuiderent didn't join them! With the ICC switching to the new system for widening recognition of ODI status, under which if the England/Namibia tour matches of this Winter were played next Winter they would be full ODIs, recognising a Test/ODI split seems to be a good idea).

I'm quite happy to do all the manual categorisation myself but I just wondered if anybody here thought that such a scheme would be useful and in what way you would prefer me to do it. If anybody has any thoughts on 1-4 (or indeed any other alternatives), then please leave some replies here. Some feedback would be appreciated!

Oh, and one more idea - what about Category:Cricket World Cup winners or similar for CWC-winning cricketers? I know there are a large number of awards and champions in cricket, but the CWC does stand out as one especially worth including (more so than, say, ICC Champions' Trophy winners) even if you are a die-hard member of the "ODI cricket isn't proper cricket" brigade. VivaEmilyDavies 21:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


WikiPortal

I've started to put together the rudiments of a cricket WikiPortal on Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. However, I'd like it to be a WikiPortal with a difference. The other ones have the editor in mind - I'd prefer to have the reader in mind, so that, once developed, the WikiPortal will be moved to "Cricket". Any comments/suggested improvements to the WikiPortal? jguk 20:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notability

Now, we have one heck of a lot of cricket articles on Wikipedia. I think we need to have some criteria, just so that we can show a definite line for notability. I would suggest as follows:

  • Players: one or more of
    • >5 Tests as a player
    • >1 Test as captain
    • >20 ODIs as player for a Test-playing nation
    • >1 ODI as captain for a Test-playing nation
    • Selection for >2 foreign Test tours
    • Captaincy of a World Cup non-Test playing nation
    • Some feat listed as a record in Wisden (I'm not sure about this one)
    • >250 first-class matches
  • Teams
    • Test-playing teams
    • ODI teams that have played >10 ODIs
    • First-class teams that have played >50 matches
  • Grounds
    • Grounds at which
      • >10 Tests have been played
      • >25 ODIs have been played
  • Competitions
    • World Cups
    • All bilateral Test series
    • Annual one-day series to have involved a minimum sum of 5 Test teams and to have continued over more than 5 seasons
    • ICC-organised international competitions for World Cup qualification (again, not quite sure)
  • Other organisations
    • Supporter groups of international teams

Any suggestions? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that cricket contributors need to have some sort of direction but I am not sure there needs to be a limit set on what can go into Wikipedia. Its bounds are limitless so I don't see a need for it. I do, however, believe that pretty much everything listed here needs to be a priority, although I'm quite happy to continue updating and categorising player profiles as I trollop around the cricketing confines of this grand encyclopedia :) --Broomballcory 15:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Personally I'd say that the following are notable enough for a WP article (though obviously VfD would be the final arbiter):
  • Anyone who has played at least one first-class game
  • Anyone who has played at least one ODI
  • Any team that has played first-class cricket (though other teams, like I Zingari and the Bunbury XI are also notable)
  • Any regular (or once regular) first-class ground
  • All first-class or List A tournaments (plus some other tournaments) jguk 19:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I think Smoddy's guidelines are a little strict. For example, Ian Bell wouldn't qualify - except perhaps by virtue of his record number of runs in April this year - and certainly I think he's easily notable enough for an entry. Conversely, to put in everyone who's ever played even one f-c match, as jguk suggests, is mightily ambitious, and would require the inclusion of people who it really would be stretching it to call "notable" cricketers. (On another note, thanks to jguk for inviting me over here in the first place!) Loganberry 14:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Welcome Loganberry. I wasn't suggesting that we should aim to have an article on every first-class cricketer, just expressing a view that any first-class cricketer is notable enough to have an article on WP (if someone wishes to write it). Maybe you are unfamiliar with WP:VfD, and if you are, I strongly recommend that you remain unfamiliar with it - but that is where articles about non-notable subjects get deleted from WP. Even though EW Bastard was not the most notable of cricketers, I don't want my small article on him deleted:) jguk 14:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay; that makes perfect sense - and I agree with you whole-heartedly on the matter of Mr Bastard. =:) In any case, I see that he played 37 matches and was selected for the Gentlemen, both of which I think settle the matter of his notability. As for WP:VfD, I've prodded at it cautiously a couple of times, but only ever actually voted there when I know exactly what I'm talking about. Which is rare! Loganberry 15:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Improvements for the cricket page

I want to improve the cricket page still further so am seeking volunteers to carry out certain tasks. Here's what I want to do:

  • Get more images relating to the sport. AlbinoMonkey had put up some nice images but unfortunately the site seems to be down. He's currently busy, so I guess that we'll have to wait a little longer.
  • I would like a nice image of a D/N ODI image in progress.
  • Improve the diagrams on the page. The current ones (made by me) are a bit amateurish, and I plan to have it redrawn.
  • Make a wikibook on cricket (I'll do this)
  • Add some references and books for further reading. (need volunteers to add books)
  • Clean up some text on the page. Some sentences are a little difficult to understand. Also reduce the page size from 32 kb to less than 30kb. (I'll do this)
  • Have the page audio recorded: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia (Volunteer needed)
  • Have the page translated to other languages. I thought we could have some healthy competition with cricket's "rival" -- baseball. Would like to know if the page can be translated/stubbed into the following languages: Arabic, Greek, Eesti, Hebrew, Latin, Italian, Lithuanian, Korean, Norsk, Polski,Portuguese, Chinese, Welsh, Irish. I can try and add Marathi, Nepali, Punjabi, Gujarati and a few other languages. (Volunteers needed)

Any takers?  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 15:07, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great. I may have a couple of helpful points for you.
  • Albinomonkey emailed the pictures to me, but all but six didn't come through. So I have six cricket balls. Then again, I may be able to get a couple of pictures taken myself. I'll see how that goes.
  • The wikibook is a great idea, but I think we may need to spend a bit of time working on the outside topics first. Would you include players' biographies? How about setting up a team of editors to get the wikibook ready together? Edit: did you mean Wikibook or WikiReader? 16:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Translation could be fun. I'll ask my cricket-cum-Latin master how to translate certain terms... "Cricket" would be a start...
I think the cricket section of wikipedia could be excellent. I especially hope we can make a trend with the wikibook! Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I was referring to wikibooks. I wasn't aware of the wikireader. If we can make a wikibook, it would be easier to make a wikireader. A wikibook would be worthwhile as the current article is constrained by tone and length.
  • I'm eager to have the page translated. [I've done that on the India page (75+ interwikis).]
  • I was looking to write about how the game is played in the wikibook rather than including biographies.
  • As for the images, good to know that you have them. This software is a great tool for uploading the files to commons. PS. I dont mind 'photoshopping' the images.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 17:08, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, that makes more sense. Nevertheless, I do think a wikireader would be good, and I don't mind doing the work. It might have to wait until after my exams, though. I'll have a think about it. As to the images, give me a couple of days. I'll do 'em in the sunshine on a cricket pitch, if I can. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

What would a Wikibook have that we can't put on Wikipedia? jguk 19:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Length will be greater. A more illustrative language. And won't have to stick to a monotonous encyclopedic tone. (This is WRT how the game is played)  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:00, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not convinced (would like to see an example first). I'm also very aware that Wikipedia gets many, many more readers than Wikibooks - which is why I have a strong preference for keeping pages on Wikipedia where possible. (Which is why I've preferred employing sometimes controversial techniques in developing the cricket coverage here rather than going to Wikicities or whatever.) Kind regards, jguk 20:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not asking for the wikibook to rival or replace the wikipedia page. I want to give a reader some more options regarding how the sport is played. There are limitations of this page which can very well be addressed in the book. eg. The methods of dismissal can be well covered in the wikibook instead of breaking off to separate articles here. Also we could have a complete coverage to the sport and gameplan there. When the cricket page was on peer review, one reviewer had suggested modifying the details as to how the game flows. At that time I wasn't aware of the wikibook.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 06:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I've been a bit busy... got exams coming up soon. I'll be on holidays from July 4, so although its a long time away it'll probably be the first real chance I get to get all those images in. Sorry guys. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Cricket wikireader

I personally feel that the wikipedia coverage of cricket is full enough to create a wikireader. This needn't be something to be set in stone, but rather something to be continually updated. I am creating a list of articles in an approximate order that they might go in at User:Smoddy/Cricket WikiReader. I would appreciate comments or contributions. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the fortnight

This is a suggestion that we have a collaboration of the fortnight. The idea derived from Smoddy's WikiReader list, which shows a number of gaps in our cricket coverage which really ought to be filled. In particular, our write-ups of the national teams are somewhat indifferent at present (although the West Indian one is probably closest to FA status.

I've opened up a page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Collaboration of the fortnight to discuss possible collaborations. Maybe discuss what we want to do for now, with the first one coming in next week (Sunday 22 May). Kind regards, jguk 12:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea. I'm not "officially" nominating anything there since I can't commit to being available to help at a specific time, but I'll say here that personally I like the idea of The Ashes being chosen, since unlike the other nominees (except perhaps the Tsunami Appeal one), time is rather of the essence with that one. Loganberry 23:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox question

What should be done with the various nationality fields in the case of those such as Kepler Wessels who played for more than one country? And, even more so, what about players who changed their actual nationality - for example, did some India/Pakistan players do that after partition? Should the flag displayed be their birth nationality, their final nationality, the flag they played most under, or what? Loganberry 11:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

See the archive of this talk page for the previous occasion on which this was discussed. There wasn't any real consensus achieved: as far as I am aware, most participants are giving players flags based on the team they played most for. --Ngb 12:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
The view above was that it should be the country with which a player is most closely associated. I think in Wessels case, he is clearly South African. However, I'm sure there are other players where the distinction is not so obvious. Kind regards, jguk 12:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, that was Smoddy's view; Nichalp and Squash were the only other people to express opinions, and they both had different suggestions. To me it seems difficult to come up with one 'defined' formula for doing it: 'the country with which a player is most closely associated' is a subjective thing, so it seems clear these things need to be decided on an individual basis rather than by some one size fits all fiat. Wessels is clearly South African. :) --Ngb 16:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Which was my point. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Wessels probably wasn't a particularly good example. One who might be, though - and someone who at the time of writing doesn't have a page at all, is John Traicos, who played three Tests for SA before their isolation, and four for Zimbabwe after they gained international status. Cricinfo list him as "Zimbabwe/South Africa", so I'd be inclined to mark him down as Zimbabwean, especially as he played for Zim in the ICC Trophy, but it's a closer-run thing in his case. (On top of all that, he was born in Egypt and now lives in Australia!) Loganberry 00:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd also go with Zimbabwean for Traicos. --Ngb 12:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

More queries :

In the last two days I added a few lines of verse to [[19]] and [Test cricket 1890-1900] . While such things are interesting or even informative, this is not the sort of things that you will usually find in an encyclopaedia.

Just wanted to know whether there is any difference of opinion about adding non-serious stuff in serious articles, in which case I'll delete them or move them to articles where they may not be out of place. If there isn't, I'll continue adding stories in a Trivia section under the articles, like the one about Ernie Jones' beamer through WG Grace's beard !

Tintin 14:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I would be careful adding such things. If they are relevant and independantly verifiable, then I think inclusion is fair enough. Otherwise, I personally wouldn't. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that you'll never find diversions such as these in encyclopaedias. If they are interesting and true, and if there are not too many of them, I quite like to see them:) You'll need to cite sources for them though, Tintin, jguk 18:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Citing sources is definitely the key, though. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. If at any point, any of them look unnecessary please leave a comment here and I'll do the needful.
I was also about write about sources because when it comes to such things as Grace's stories, many versions exist for almost all of them.
As an aside, it may be a neat idea to start an article for cricketing verses, and include 10-15 of the most famous ones. I have Alan Ross' anthology 'A Cricketer's companion' lying around somewhere, which has some 100 pages of poems. Tintin 20:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, be careful to avoid copyright violations. Secondly, this might be better for WikiSource. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

An article on cricket-related poetry would be appropriate for WP - I think it would be quite interesting - maybe even a future Collaboration of the Fortnight. Such an article wouldn't quote at length from any one verse, therefore avoiding copyright problems (also, some of the older and better ones are out of copyright now anyway).

Only longer quotations would need to go on Wikisource. I say go for it Tintin, and I'll chip in every so often:

Block, block, block
At the foot of thy wicket, O Scotton!
And I would that my tongue would utter
My boredom. You won't put the pot on!
Oh, nice for the bowler, my boy,
That each ball like a barndoor you play!
Oh, nice for yourself, I suppose,
That you stick at the wicket all day!
And the clock's slow hands go on,
And you still keep up your sticks;
But oh! for the lift of a smiting hand,
And the sound of a swipe for six!
Block, block, block,
At the foot of thy wicket, ah do!
But one hour of Grace or Walter Read
Were worth a week of you!

Also, how does that one about Hornby and Barlow go? Kind regards, jguk 17:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I learned it by heart when I was a teenager. It goes OTOH -
It's little I repair to the matches of the Southron folk
Though my own red roses there may blow
It's little I repair to the matches of the Southron folk
Though the red roses crest the caps I know
For the field is full of shades as I near a shadowy coast
And a ghostly batsman plays to the bowling of a ghost
And I look through my tears on a soundless clapping host
As the run stealers flicker to and fro
To and fro,
O my Hornby and my Barlow long ago
It's Gloucester come north the irresistable
The shire of the Graces long ago
It's Gloucestershire up north the irrestistable
And the new risen Lancashire the foe
A shire so young that it has scarce impressed its traces
Ah, how shall it stand before all resistless Graces
O little red rose, their bats are as maces
To beat thee down, this summer long ago
This day of seventy they are come north against thee,
This day of seventy eight long ago
The champion of the centuries, he cometh up against thee
And his brethren, everyone a famous foe
The long whiskered doctor who laughs the rules to scorn
While the bowler pitched against him bans the day he was born
And GF, with his science makes the fairest length forlorn
They are come up from the West to work thee woe
It's little I repair ...
This is how I remember it. Some of the bad grammar could be either old English or my errors.
A search in google turned up nothing. It is a shame if it not available online anywhere. Its copyright must have long expired. Gutenberg has none of Francis Thomson's poems. Tintin 19:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Although it's got 4 verses, I've never heard before the first one before. Derek Birley in both The Willow Wand and his excellent A Social History of English Cricket is disparaging about the other verses. He also points out that Francis Thompson originally went for "O my Monkey and my Stonewaller long ago" before deciding to use surnames rather than nicknames! jguk 20:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
And don't forget There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night/Ten to make and the match to win. Stephen Turner 19:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I've added all this to Cricket poetry. I haven't done much with it, but from little acorns great oaks do grow, jguk 22:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I ran across Cricket poetry during my usual perusal of newly-created articles. Might I suggest fleshing it out a bit with some commentary or historicay perspective on the genre of cricket poetry? Right now the article is just a collection of poems. While interesting, they're perhaps better suited to Wikisource or perhaps Wikiquote. Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Added the background for At Lord's. Read it in a book called 'They made cricket' by GD Martineau many years ago. I may have missed some details, so i you can find this or some other source, feel free to rewrite the story. Tintin 11:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

International Template

I've made a template similar to that of the 2005 English cricket season template, only for international tours this season. The season classification is from cricinfo. Thought it might be useful if we want to expand the coverage on other tours as well as the England competitions. Edit: I see now that the naming is a bit stupid - maybe some admin could rename it to "international cricket tours of 2005" instead of just international tours? Sam Vimes 09:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it as requested, but you could have moved it yourself: there should be a "Move this page" link somewhere (exactly where it is will depend on which skin you are using). This might not work if the target already exists and is not simply a redirect to the page being moved with no history - in which case you would need to get an admin involved via Wikipedia:Requested moves - but in this case, all was fine. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't know about that (am still a bit of a n00b at wiki-editing). Will use it in future. Sam Vimes 10:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah, you need to be around for a few days for the "move" function to be unlocked (and unregistered editors can't do it at all). See, er, Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page, I think, for more info. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"Result"

I was a little startled when editing The Ashes to discover that there is an article about results in cricket located at plain Result. As someone says on that article's Talk page (and I agree), it's hardly the first place someone specifically interested in cricket would look. I'm not sure whether there's a need for a specific Results in cricket page or the like, but if so it should certainly go in a less vaguely-titled article. Loganberry 02:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the page to The result in cricket. --Ngb 10:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_2&oldid=1137387760"