This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Seems to be a lot of confusion over many of the Bangladeshi player's names ... a couple of weeks back I changed Saqibul Hasan to Sakib Al Hasan. I have just come across Abdur Razzaq's page where the references in the article (including CricketArchive which wasn't referenced) call him Abdur RazzaK so I have gone ahead an moved the page to that name. I'm curious over why there are always multiple names floating about for Muslim players because from memory we had a problem with Younis Khan recently as well. When a player starts their career wouldn't they tell their media manager what they are to be called? So often half the media refer to a player by one name and the other half by another ... Crickettragic 02:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is somewhat confusing. Whilst I freely admit I am completely oblivious and ignorant to, well, almost everything regarding Asian scripts, I would assume it's just a minor translation issue - q to k isn't *that* much of a huge jump, after all. Perhaps something similar to the Japanese, in that they have one letter for both l and r? AllynJ 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The translation thing is part of it but sub continental names, especially the muslim ones, are by their nature pretty fluid, as I've found out helping our Bangladesh expert on first class cricketers there. Most of the articles on cricket archive say they're also known by some nickname or other, several players have the same name, others are headlined with one name (sometimes just one name) but then another is given as their full name and then every so often they change their names completely. Also if you think about it, everyone knew Imran Khan as Imran - but you'd never have a commentator say 'and here comes Steve into bowl...' when they're talking about Harmison. Waqar was usually just Waqar wasn't he? All you can do is try to be as clear as possible and mop up any changes as you go along. And if you think their names are unreliable, just wait till you start trying to research their real birthdates.... Nick mallory 02:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See [1]. What's that about "Sarfraz"? --Dweller 11:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He is nicknamed "Sarfraz" because of his ability to swing the (old ?) ball. Tintin 12:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's his nickname, as listed in List of nicknames used in cricket, and used on T20 shirts [2]. Apparently his action is considered similar to that of Sarfraz Nawaz.[3] JPD (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. If someone would like to add that to Stuart Clark that'd be cool. --Dweller 12:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: fr:Portail:Cricket and fr:Cricket and fr:Catégorie:Cricket. Those guys have been busy. Are there any other non-en languages with similar coverage?—Moondyne 12:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I recently invited User:OrangeKnight, a regular on the French Wiki into WP:CRIC. Personally, I know that there is some coverage on the Indian languages but is nothing compared to English Wiki. Cricket coverage is strong here because it is essentially a Commonwealth sport, so every major nation consists of a large number of English speakers (First or second language). Of course, most modern global sports either originate from the U.S. or the U.K. but from what I remember, the Italian Wikipedia for example, has as much infomation if not more in certain areas on Football (Soccer). Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Est-ce qu'il y a quelqu'un qui peut traduire French cricket pour les francais? Johnlp 13:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To Johnlp : Oui, je vais le faire ! :) (Yes, I'm going to do it...)

To Moondyne : I'm proud to be one of the only cricket fans in France... And to make some contributions on the French Wiki, where there is (was?) nearly nothing! A few month ago, there was no portal, a complete article for cricket (of course!), an article for Don Bradman and 3 or 4 other players (those whose death was in 2005 for exemple), but no Tendulkar, Lara, Warne, Hadlee, Sobers, Hobbs, and so on, no test cricket, no ODI, no First-class cricket, no national cricket team! That's why we are (I am ?... In fact we are "two" for a week...) trying to expand cricket in the French Wiki... But that's very very long as we have started from scratch! In our WikiProject Sport (we have no WikiProject Cricket), we have just a few articles rated as top-importance... At the moment, I (try to) work a lot on Australia National Cricket Team (in French) (which is rated as top-importance), and we'll have to do the same work for the other test nations... And now, I'm very proud and happy to join you and this marvellous project! OrangeKnight 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible for a fielder to stump a player? I'd always assumed not, and stump (cricket) agrees; but this match (Cricinfo scorecard) claims that Sajjadul Hasan stumped Tareq Aziz, despite the fact he is not a wicket-keeper, nor he was keeping wicket for the match... Could it just be he was standing in for the actual keeper while he was off the field temporarily, or something? How should this be noted on the article? (I feel it should be noted as it's a rather odd anomaly, and could lead to someone reading the page assuming he is a wicket-keeper.) Not something I've ever seen before, that's for certain. AllynJ 17:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cricketarchive uses the + after the "st" or "c" to indicate it if the stumping/catch was effected by a non-designated wicket-keeper. See this example or the double dismissal of Oxenham here Tintin 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well found Tintin - a very rare (if not the only) occurrence of a reversal of roles (st x b y/st y b x) in same match.–MDCollins (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To add to the above: only a keeper can stump a player, but it doesn't have to be the one designated at the start of the game. Using the recent Eng v WI match as an example, if Bravo had pulled off a stumping when filling in for the injured Ramdin, it would have gone down in the scorebook as "st Ramdin b [whoever]". However, had Bravo broken the wicket when Ramdin was keeping, it would have been "run out" with no credit to the bowler. Loganberry (Talk) 22:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean it would've gone down as "st +Bravo b [whoever]"? Else I'm thoroughly confused. :) Was aware of the run-out bit, though. AllynJ 22:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If Bravo was behind the stumps, yes. –MDCollins (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Javed Miandad has one Test stumping to his name, incidentally. Loganberry (Talk) 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A throw away comment in today's copy of The Times' coverage of Minor Counties mentions that 9 MC players represented England in Tests in the 1990s. I'd love to know who they are/were... and how you define them as MC players (played MCs before/after/during Test career?) --Dweller 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I imagine it would have to have been during their career, after all both Derek Randall and Devon Malcolm played for Suffolk after their first-class careers... The Rambling Man 10:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Larkins, Phil Newport, Paul Taylor, Mark Lathwell, Chris Read, Aftab Habib, Martin McCague, Andy Lloyd), Joey Benjamin... Johnlp 10:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the last Minor Counties cricketer to play for England while still playing for the Minor County was the great Sydney Barnes. Others like Ian Peebles, Ronald Stanyforth, David Townsend hadn't even played Minor Counties cricket I think Nigej 11:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather coincidentally, the legend that is Bill Frindall addresses this in his BBC column today.[4] He lists Sydney Barnes (Staffordshire), Charles Coventry (Worcestershire pre FC status), Audley Miller (Wiltshire) and David Townsend. (Durham pre FC status) Andrew nixon 13:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't mind vandals too much. Their antics crop up in the old watchlist and, after a swift undo, remind me that I ain't looked at this page for yonks and I ought to think about expanding it by adding that stuff I read in wotsit on holiday a couple of months back. In fact, I think trolls are worse than vandals, especially those you find on the CfD and AfD and stub-sort pages...... meddlers, do-gooders and worse

I would guess that 99% of articles on WP are effectively part of the remit of one the numerous WikiProjects. There's even a Thomas the Tank Engine project! I might join that: Jack the belligerent engine who leaves his annoying trucks up on some windswept moor when it's pissing it down.

So, although a WikiProject does not "own" an article and "anyone can edit", why not have a system whereby every article is nominally owned by a designated project (or more) and have a rule whereby an article that attracts vandals can be "claimed" by a project member on behalf of the project, such that it is protected by that project and only registered user/project members can update it? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like just another layer of bureaucracy. There's already a system whereby articles that are repeatedly vandalised can be protected, and there are enough admins associated with the cricket project for one of them to be cajoled into action. A large part of the attraction of the whole project for me is that the wise words of learned experts can be edited by anyone - and I'm optimistic enough to think that good edits will tend to survive, while bad ones mostly get reverted pretty quickly. Johnlp 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Johnlp on this one. Wikipedia is the encyclopeia that anyone can edit. That's the whole point. That's its unique selling point. Once the powers that be start messing with that, as they're starting to do, then the whole project is dead. Yes there's some petty vandalism but there's lots of tween editors who love reverting that stuff and do little else and it's a price worth paying for the freedom Wikipedia offers. The more bureaucratic the system gets, no matter how good the intentions, the worse wikipedia will become. This is the internet, so there's a very high turnover of editors and technology and everything else, setting anything in stone dooms it to irrelevence very quickly. People ditch a site if it takes more than a few seconds to load these days, any barrier to editing puts large swathes of potentially useful people off and the more people working on these things the better. Nick mallory 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, guys. You're right, it would be another layer and, after all, as I said at the outset vandals are actually useful as reminders once you've reverted them. I remember a while back I got Blnguyen to put a block on Samuel Britcher who had become a frequent target. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Another bureaucratic issue is round the corner at Talk:William Bedle. I hope BlackJack will keep his cool this time. Tintin 18:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oi! If anyone's going to be rude around here it's going to be me. Nick mallory 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying really hard to keep cool, Tintin. The air conditioning's gone at work and we're all sweltering!! Don't worry about the Bedle thing, not an issue. Thanks to Nick, Ollie and Tintin for contributions to it. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just rewritten the Bedle article because I forgot to include a source in the references list and it's caused confusion around what information came from which source. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I happened upon Category:English club cricket teams earlier today, and I'm wondering what to do with the majority of the articles. Are the majority of these actually in any way notable? Obviously there's exceptions like Hambledon, but there's plenty of dubious ones. Thought I'd get some opinions here before embarking on any possible purge. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide a list of the dubious cases so that we can consider them? Basically, any club that is part of the national league structure is notable, so if there are any that are not in the leagues we should take a look at them. The category may include other former clubs besides Hambledon that have played first-class cricket. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some "major" leagues are not in the national structure though, eg. the Lancashire League, which I'd say is quite notable. Andrew nixon 19:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I was wondering if the project had any notability guidelines for clubs for starters? From what I remember every club down to level 10 of the pyramid in football is notable, but I'm not entirely sure how the cricket leagues are set up. I'll happily leave the entire task to those with more specialist knowledge if it's going to get done, for example articles such as Yarm cricket club are in need of attention. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) any club that is part of the national league structure is notable - is it? To be fair, I've no idea when it comes to cricket below Minor Counties level, so I might be about to start barking up the wrong tree but... It seems to me that many of these clubs are basically unremarkable - what has Knowle and Dorridge Cricket Club got going for it, for example? In terms of notability, the only source I can turn up internet-wise is the clubs own website, and primary sources don't prove notability. Can articles like that be expanded, or is that all we are ever going to have to say. If that;s it, I would call for the individual clubs to be merged into the article pertaining to the league. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If football clubs down to the 10th level are deemed notable there's no reason for us to cave and be too restrictive with the non first class cricket clubs we allow. A lot of these clubs have been playing for over a hundred years and are important parts of their communities. Nick mallory 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case I suggest you find non trivial coverage of them in secondary sources please. "important parts of their communities" does not equal notabilty. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We had a bit of a discussion six weeks ago on this [5]. For English cricket, I'd support retention of teams playing in the ECB leagues plus the Lancashire leagues, and a few obvious notables that have historic importance. But I don't know enough about lower level cricket elsewhere to make a sensible judgement on where to draw the line in other countries. Johnlp 08:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think league cricket is something we're not too hot on and it's an area that I for one know very little about. Certainly cricket's minor club structure doesn't seem anything like so well organised as soccer's or rugby's.

I see there is a list of ECB premier leagues in their site at [6]. Should we take the view that any club in one of these leagues is notable? Johnlp seems to imply that the Lancashire League, the Bradford League and so on are unaffiliated and I can't find them on this ECB site (which I think is very poor, by the way). Does anyone know why this should be and does it mean that the ECB leagues are minor in status to the Lancashire, Bradford, etc.? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Lancashire League and the like are a lot older than the county leagues that began to spring up in the south in the 1970s and which have subsequently affiliated to the ECB. One difference is that some (all?) of the long-established northern leagues allow each club to have one professional player and the clubs charge spectators for admission. I'm not sure how the playing standards would compare now. The Lancashire League and Central Lancashire League were once very strong, but I think that their standards may have fallen and the ECB-affiliated county leagues have got stronger. The northern leagues now find it harder to get the top-class overseas players that they used to get as their professionals, now that the counties snap so many of them up. JH (talk page) 12:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey all. I was wondering if (and hoping that) someone has information/pictures/scorecards/results about American Pro Cricket matches stored away somewhere. There is a lack of information on-line and I'm trying to remedy that by getting all of the information available and putting it online in one place. Any help is welcome. Thanks.--Eva ^bd 18:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You could try contacting CricketArchive and see if they are able to help. JH (talk page) 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried that. There response was that they'd like to add the information to their records, but they can't find any of it. :) --Eva ^bd 00:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Any other suggestions, mates?--Eva ^bd 18:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of anything myself, I'm afraid... I'm assuming Procricket.com was their home page, but has now become defunct? Other than that, the only places I would imagine scorecards would be are at the clubs' administration (although judging by the fact the league is no longer operational, I guess this is irrelevent) or ... well, other than that I'm really drawing blank, sorry. AllynJ 19:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro Cricket in America folded after the first season.It was a great cricket competition in the making. For a limited - perhaps zero budget they created a show and saw it through.Money was to be supplied through its tv deals. Such a pity that the television network, I think it was called American Desi TV , did not eventuate despite dish network ,advertising and selling the channel. I am interested if you can buy the tapes of the games - they were shown on pay-per-view.Sj41199 16:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

....and even the ECB Trophy for a short time. This is how the label for the limited overs cup is starting to look in the honours sections of the English county articles and I wonder if we ought to use a specific label. If you have a look at Sussex CCC I've changed its honours section so that the label is FP Trophy with a footnote to explain the former names of the competition. I've done a similar thing with the National League and provided another footnote to explain the concept of the Champion County (pre-1890). Using Sussex as a guinea pig, can you provide some feedback about this approach. When we've got a consensus, which might be on a different approach, I'll apply it to all the county articles for consistency. Thanks. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine. However, if we are going to have "Twenty20 Cup (0)" then we ought also to have "Benson & Hedges Cup (0)". (Though the competition is no longer going, it did at least keep the same name throughout, and was one of the main comptetetions for over 30 years.) JH (talk page) 08:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, John. I've done that and we'll see what people think. The alternative would be to remove any zero competition until the team wins it but I think I'd rather have confirmation that the team has not won that competition as an omission doesn't necessarily mean no wins. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

All sounds sensible to me! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm heading away for a week now, but I've got a couple of things to mention before I go:

• We don't seem to have an article for coverage of the upcoming South Africa v India ODIs in Belfast. Perhaps a mention in International cricket in 2007 would suffice.
• The template at the bottom of Chris Cairns, (2000 runs / 200 wickets) looks terrible. Can this one (and I assume others of the same type) at least be fixed so they don't look dodgy on narrow screens (I'm gettings bits like "Hadlee 54 Tests" and "56 Tests" with lines to themselves - and my screen is not particularly small!). Better than that, we could put them out of their misery altogether...

Cheers! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy your trip, Ollie. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Done the first of your requests, also added some others that were missing (Pakistan in Scotland, Friendship Cup). Other bit isn't really "my thing", so to speak; unsure of what to do. Have fun wherever you're off to. :) AllynJ 10:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy the template, but have had to use the <br> tags to force the line break as I can't get the flags to stay with the rest of the tag. So, this will keep 'flag-player name-tests' together, but will sometimes create an extra line on narrow displays. If we can either remove the flag), or use nbsp to attach the flag template to the player, problem solved. –MDCollins (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to find a specific infobox for cricketers a while ago, and suddenly came across the fact we have about 25+ (purposeful overstatement :p) infoboxes for minimal purposes. For example, here are the ones for players:

• Template:Infobox Cricketer (Tests, ODIs)
• Template:Infobox Cricketer alt (Tests, ODIs; no idea of any specific usage; completely unused it seems, should probably be taken to TfD)
• Template:Infobox Historic cricketer (Tests, First-class)
• Template:Infobox Historic Cricketer (Overs) (Tests, First-class; measured in overs instead of bowls which can be merged via a parser function addition to the template above this one; completely unsused and, again, should be taken to TfD)
• Template:Infobox Recent cricketer (First-class, List A)
• Template:Infobox Cricketer (Career) (First-class, List A; different from the one above as it's for a cricketer using 2 templates)
• Template:Infobox Old Cricketer (First-class)
• Template:Infobox NonTest Cricketer (First-class, List A; limited use, should be replaced by Infobox Recent cricketer)
• Template:Infobox Women's Cricketer (Tests, ODIs for women)
• Template:Infobox Historic woman cricketer (Tests for women; reasonable usage, could perhaps be combined with above using parser functions)

Is there anything we can do to tidy these up? It's excessive at best, and silly at worst. 3 can easily be dispatched of (Historic Cricketer (Overs); NonTest Cricketer; Infobox Cricketer alt), but is there any way we could remove some others? I assume it would be possible to merge the women's ones in to one using a Tests and ODIs variable, set to true or false for whether they played matches of each kind... Could this also be applied to Old cricketer, to be merged with Historic cricketer? I'm far from an expert at parser functions or hCard usage but I've become somewhat acquainted during my time. There's also a fair amount of templates for series/tours/etc. but I think that should be left for another day. If we can come up with some consensus I'd be happy to put the work in. AllynJ 06:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also Template:Cricketer Infobox which is the one I usually use for the flexibility. eg, you can have an infobox that features just ODIs and first-class stats. To be honest, you could probably use this for just about every single player by sensible use of the template, except for players who only played FC or List A cricket and no other form. Andrew nixon 06:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't use these things precisely because they are so confusing and I think a review is long overdue. I'm not convinced they add anything to an article and there are countless stubs of 20th century players which contain one sentence and an infobox only which are very poor in terms of presentation. One rule I would recommend is that an infobox must not be used until the article has reached at least B-class. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I do think they're pretty useful in some cases. As you say, when accompanying a stub they're of little value but I do think they add to an article as a whole.AllynJ 06:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cricketer Infobox? Oh dear. There's also Template:Cricketer infobox (note the capitalisation) which redirects to [[Template:Infobox Cricketer. This is down right confusing & bizarre at times. Although on a somewhat related note, the "I was trying to find a specific infobox" was Template:Cricketer Infobox, the one you mentioned, and wondered why I couldn't find it... Argh. Silly. AllynJ 06:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is confusing - perhaps some can be purged, or renamed so they are easier to navigate. Also, perhaps a guide to which ones to use could be made - I don't mind giving this a go.

While we are discussing templates, Archive 35 included a discussion about mentioning Wicketkeeper in infoboxes (maybe in the bowling field). Can we decide something on this, or have an optional field in the infobox? It seems silly that Alec Stewart and Adam Gilchrist amongst others have their bowling descriptions in the infobox. Also could/should the occasional bowlers be marked as such? Any views? –MDCollins (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A user has put a large number of cricket tours up for deletion. These articles are short by they are fully referenced as it and I expect them to be expanded in the future. Please help save these articles by putting your messages on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bangladeshi_cricket_team_in_Australia_in_2003. Thanks 02blythed 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC). The link does say the deletion of the Bangledesh cricket team in Australia but once clicked it shows the many number of articles he is putting up for deletion

I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall on this. But I've expanded West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61, since one of the most famous tours of all ought to have a decent article. When/if time permits, I'll expand it further. (And of course anyone else is welcome to do the same.) JH (talk page) 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow contributor to these kinds of topics I can see why you want these to be kept, but the fact of the matter is they fail WP:CSD#A1. There is no reason for a lot of these to be kept in their current state. It simply goes against criteria, precedence and Wikipedia's guidelines. I enjoy expanding these kinds of articles, and expect I will do more in the future, but it seems bizarre that these have even lasted 4 months without even really serving as a full stub. AllynJ 20:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

These are remnants of the mass creation by User:BlackJack a few months back: Jack has since accepted that he was perhaps over-ambitious in hoping to expand all of these in a short time, and various clumps of them have already been deleted. I think it has been widely agreed that they are pretty much indefensible in their present state and that a redlink serves the more useful purpose of showing where an article is missing and needed. But there is a danger that mass deletion removes stuff that is on the point of expansion, or where some work has been done since the deletion notice was posted. So if anyone does work on these, as JH has, can they shout loud on the deletion notice page: otherwise they may find their good work gone. Johnlp 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How about if there are any particular tours a certain editor forsees working on, (or in fact, maybe all of them), they are moved out of mainspace in to user/WP:CRIC space so they are not deleted forever? I think we all agree that they do not deserve their place here, but might be useful somewhere until full work can be done. I'm sure a bot could do this. At the very least, a collection of the red (currently blue) links will be invaluable and will save a lot of time if they are recreated. Would either of these be useful? –MDCollins (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Johnlp. When I created these I bit off more than I could chew and what seemed like a good idea at the time was not so. I should have created templates with redlinks in them and left it to the project to develop those over time. If the "stubs" are deleted, I still have them all on TextPad and can easily recreate them with additional information, when I can find time to do it. By all means put them in user space too but I won't be too bothered if they get deleted.

However, I think you should ask User:Arkyan to modify his list and remove all those aricles that have now got some meaningful content, especially the Tied Test tour.

Sorry I fouled up on this one. I'll go back to the 18th century where I belong! --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus has been that there is no consensus, so they remain. About a third of them now have some meaningful content, which is great, and suggests that in a couple of weeks all of them could have made some progress, so that we don't have to go through this process again! At least until the next time. Johnlp 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A great song by Canned Heat and it applies to me too as my on-off plans for 2007 are definitely on again. So I shall be leaving you for several months but should be back in the autumn.

I want to tie up a few loose ends first and these concern the 18th century Englsih season reviews up to and including 1800 English cricket season. I want to get all these up to start-class status and ensure that all the matches listed have links to scorecard information. I've done up to 1795 but haven't time this evening to do the remaining five years so I will try and get them finished tomorrow.

There are a huge number of missing articles of the 19th century, plus some of the last decade of the 18th century. I've created a project page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/redlinks which lists many of these. If anyone has time over the next few months to research any of them and create articles, that will definitely help the project. I'll pick them up again when I come back.

All the best. Enjoy your cricket this summer. Au revoir! --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy the road, Jack.--Eva ^bd 01:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye, have a good time fella. AllynJ 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Have fun. I'll have a look at some of those links and do a bit on them when I can. I always thought of 'On the Road Again' as a song by His Bobness on on the electric side of 1965's ground breaking 'Bringing It All Back Home'. "Well, I woke up in the morning there's frogs inside my socks, Your mama, she's a-hidin' inside the icebox, Your daddy walks in wearin' a Napoleon Bonaparte mask, Then you ask why I don't live here - Honey, do you have to ask?" Sorry. (Nick mallory 02:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has written that Panesar owns 2 Balti houses in Luton. Is that true? Speedboy Salesman 14:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it should be removed; it's unsourced, and so WP:BLP comes in to play. A Google search brought up absolutely nothing; but regardless, the burden of proof lies with he who wants to add such content: if someone wants to re-add it, let them do so with a source. Whilst I'm going to assume good faith, if it isn't it's potentially racial stereotyping and should definitely be removed. AllynJ 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Having looked up the addition of the info, it was added here by the same user who added this, which is almost certainly vandalism; and his talk page has various warning templates on it. Yeah, likely vandalism. Remove. AllynJ 15:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made fully collapsed meta-template structure in Tendlkar's wikipage. I used a collapsibe table - the third in the list (always collapse). I hope this input helps for ensuring that this discussion is buried, once and for all times. (by that, i mean atleast till a month!) --Kalyan 19:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent. Well done! JH (talk page) 20:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of you may know that I write for the CricketEurope website. If I need to reference something in an article here that I have reported in an article I have written there, can I do that without it being classed as original research? Just so I know for future reference. Andrew nixon 22:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've faced the same question, Andrew, because of my work elsewhere on the web. It's a difficult area but the answer is yes because CricketEurope is the source, not Andrew Nixon. I've always made sure that anything I take from my own site or from my ACS work is accompanied by the sources I used when I first wrote it: e.g., if I use some of my "own material" on WP that is about something I originally spotted in G B Buckley's book, I ensure that he is quoted as a reference in the WP article. Original research applies to work that has not been published elsewhere. Just because you are the expert in that topic does not mean you cannot replicate your work on here, but it must have been published elsewhere. You can't just use Wikipedia as a drawing board for your own theories. Oh, and by the way, you must give yourself permission to use your material on Wikipedia!  ;-) --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But what if what I have written in an article on CricketEurope is researched from non-published sources, eg. personal communication. For example, I know that a short tri-series between Jersey, Guernsey and France takes place next month in Jersey, but that has not been published anywhere. If I was to write an article (on CricketEurope) that mentioned it, could I then reference that article on the relevant Wikipedia pages for those national sides when writing about their forthcoming cricket? Andrew nixon 07:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, personally... WP:OR#Citing_oneself says that providing your thoughts have been published in a "reliable publication" then it is okay; now, considering CricketEurope hosts the official websites of Jersey, Guernsey and France it seems like a perfectly reliable place to have posted these findings. I'd certainly say that providing you do source your own article and write in third person then there isn't any real trouble. AllynJ 09:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, re your example of the tri-series, if you quote CricketEurope as the source you have no problem. If you introduced that information to WP without publishing it elsewhere then under WP rules that would be original research. But it isn't so please create the article and provide a link so that we can read it. I just wrote a piece in 1789 English cricket season about the proposed first overseas tour which would have been by the Duke of Dorset's team to France, but instead of becoming the first-ever tour, it became the first tour to be cancelled for political reasons: the small matter of the French Revolution!

Allyn, your point about writing in the third person is very good. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have referenced one of my CricketEurope articles in Argentina national women's cricket team. Could one of you confirm if that is an acceptable way of referencing my own work? Andrew nixon 13:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, sorry for not responding sooner as I did look at this over the weekend. I think it's fine. The source is CricketEurope and the material has been published elsewhere before being introduced to WP. It's also very good work. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please help me regularly update the twenty20 cup 2007 page with me. thank you. --Fahima07 21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll have the time but I'm interested in Twenty20 so I'll keep a watch on it and do what I can. Your article does highlight the need for an extra domestic competitions category as the current one is properly for generic articles. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How's it lookin? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know this has been covered before, and we usually agree that there is little need for them. But whenever I remove one from an article, it's put straight back again within hours. Can anyone come up with a good reason to have them there? And would anyone mind if they were all deleted? And what reason would we give for their deletion? Or if they do stay, can we come up with guidelines on their use? I see no reason to include one when the article mentions that the player played in the World Cup. Surely the use of a template is to convey information that can not be easily conveyed in the prose? Andrew nixon 04:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in support for WC squads template boxes. I think it is essential as people may navigate to other pages from the original wikipages (i have done so numerous times!). Also, i am wondering why all the dissent in usage in cricket alone when numerous other sports have it. To ease a lot of people's uneasiness, i suggest we modify these templates so that the template header is the only info available by default and if the user is interested, he can click on the "show" button to see the relevant information. (Eg: Templates on FA article - Bill Russell. That said, if the group decides to do away with templates, i shall go with it (reluctantly, i should say!) --Kalyan 06:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, it only confirms the problem. On that article, even with only the header showing on most of them, I can't fit all of them on my screen, and I'm running at a 1280x1024 resolution! Andrew nixon 07:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That is ugly! I'm at 1920x1200, and I can just get all the templates on my screen when they're all closed, but I can't get the categories on at the same time. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I find the navigation argument somewhat spurious, because it's solved by categories. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it just me, but i hardly use the categories. Always been comfortable using templates. --Kalyan 09:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, navboxes are definitely more efficient for navigating than using categories, but unless they are limited to only the few most useful navboxes, they stop being helpful and just become a mess. They are definitely overused in other sports, and in cricket there is even more reason to avoid them, as there aren't any tournaments that obviously deserve such special treatment. The WC isn't quite so significant to be singled out in that way ahead of Test cricket. JPD (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Having the contents hidden by default helps, but is not a complete solution where there are more than a few of the things - the list of headers looks just as bad. Perhaps we need a meta-template around them, to hide the whole lot behind one heading, like the multiple wikiprojects template - ((WikiProjectBannerShell)) - used on talk pages to avoid clutter when there are 3 or more wikiproject banners. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am game for this idea. -- Kalyan 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have encompassed Sachin Tendulkar's templates into 2 meta structures - one title achievements (10,000+ runs; 50+ test ave) and another for WC Participation (1992 - 2007). Does this work? --Kalyan 11:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - well done - that is the sort of thing I was thinking of. They should be hidden by default, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that they should be hidden by default. Also, I'd be happy with a compromise where they are only used if a player has played in more than one World Cup, and not used at all on stubs, where they look really ugly. Delete any non-WC ones though. Andrew nixon 11:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

We've discussed this so many times now, I think it's time to have a straw poll to establish whether there is a consensus. The choices are to keep them or delete them (and replace them by categories). (Actually, even in the case of keep, the categories need to be added to the templates). Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It would so much better if it was just mentioned in the prose. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: As indicated above. Kalyan 09:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Makes for easy navigation.Crickettragic 10:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Categories would be much tidier. Andrew nixon 10:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Remove most. Every rule has exceptions, but these really don't help in general. JPD (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but hide the whole lot behind one heading as suggested by ALoan. If that's not possible then get rid of them as they do clutter up the page and membership of a world cup squad isn't really that important Nick mallory 10:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. They make us look like a Yellow Pages directory, not an encyclopedia. Keep but hide is second best, but a long way behind. Johnlp 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see it being of much help Tintin 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Nick mallory. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew Nixon.--Eva ^bd 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Dead on neutral - neither hate nor love them, but if they are to be kept then they should all be in the same fashion as the new style on Sachin Tendulkar. AllynJ 14:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all squad templates. This is a flying visit and I couldn't resist this topic! --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but make them collapsible.--THUGCHILDz 20:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but make them collapsible, with the default state being collapsed. JH (talk page) 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but tidy them up significantly. Using meta-templates would probably be best. See Sachin Tendulkar. Muzher (talk • contribs) 11:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He's back again already! Been talking to George Williams who has been adding match result information to some of the tour articles that nearly got hit in this discussion recently. George has encountered an old problem around "tours" by teams that arrive only to take part in an LOI tournament against the host nation and the team that has just played a Test series.

George suggests, and I'm inclined to agree although I originally created a tour article for every single visiting team, that the LOI visits are redirected to the LOI tournament article and that we should only use tour articles for teams that played Test or (especially in pre-Test days) first-class cricket. This would redirect 20-plus "team in Australia" articles and reduce the size of the template somewhat. What do you all think? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The LOI tours are ephemeral by nature and will always be vulnerable to the charge of being a mere record of games, unlike Test tours which can be seen as a entity in their own right. The tour articles, especially in modern times are generally about the Test series anyway while the LOI tours already have an article about them anyway. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 06:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite a number of these limited overs articles need attention really. I do not see the point of a separate article for a team playing a limited overs tournament because if there is a point then there should be an article called X cricket team in West Indies in 2007 for all the 16 teams that took part in the recent World Cup! --GeorgeWilliams 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree they aren't a priority. But where a touring team played warm-up (or any other kind of) List A matches against other first-class teams before joining in on a tournament, then I don't see any harm in having them either. The point about Wikipedia is that we don't have the constraints on space that there are in other media. I'm not going to rush to fill any of them out, and where they consist of only a sentence restating the title, I'd not defend them (as I wouldn't defend any Test tour article in the same state). But tours that involve first-class or List A cricket are, in my view, per se notable, and eventually I'd presume we'll want these articles. But not as a priority. Johnlp 21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the question is whether tours mainly made to participate in an ODI tournament should use the "XXX in YYY" format, or simply have an article about the tournament. For bilateral series, it doesn't really make any difference, but for triangular tournaments, a tournament article could work better. Warm up games could be included in the tournament article (see the WC article). It's not a matter of notability, simply about how the info is organised. It makes more sense to find England and Bangladesh's warm up and triangular series games in 2002/3 in one article, rather than as separate tours. The only difficulty I can see is to decide what to do with the different matches played by a team who tour for a test series and a multinational ODI tournament. JPD (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Say we have Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in Australia and both play in the tri-series, then there should be an article about the tri-series. Lets say Sri Lanka only plays in the tri-series plus two warmups against Queensland and Australia A. But Bangladesh plays a Test series. I'd have two articles : "Bangladesh in Australia in ccyy-yy" and "Australian tri-series ccyy-yy". The Sri Lanka warmups could be referred to in the tri-series article. The tri-series would link to the Bangladesh Test tour and vice-versa. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I would even suggest that Bangladesh's ODI warm-ups belong in the tri-series article, not the tour article - but apart from that question, it's all straightforward. JPD (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. If I was an encyclopedia user wanting to find out about all the Sri Lankan tours by the national team to Australia, I would go to the category that is called Sri Lankan cricket tours of Australia (and that is appended to Test tour articles) and expect to find all the tours listed there regardless of whether the team played first-class or List A matches. So there should be an article under each and every tour name, eventually. That doesn't stop details from tournaments being grouped together under a tournament title, and that could be cross-referenced from the tour article, which doesn't need to carry those details. But we still need a tour article, even if it's not much more than a redirect, so that we have a coherent record of who toured where and when. And I don't see why warm-up matches that aren't part of a particular tournament but still count as List A (or first-class) matches should be treated as part of the tournament: patently, they're often not very important, but that's no reason to misrepresent them. Johnlp 18:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see your point about the category. An article does not need to be named "Sri Lankans in Australia, CCYY-YY" in order to appear in the the category Sri Lankan cricket tours of Australia. The question is whether the information should be treated in the traditional bilateral XXX in YYY format, or whether they should reflect that fact that these days, tours are often actually simply about participating in a three (or more)-way tournament. Does it hurt to treat the tournament article as more of an article about the tour by all the other countries, with sections about the leadup and warm-up matches, rather than only including matches that were strictly part of the tournament? Then everything is more coherent and the tour articles, instead of being not much more than a redirect, can actually be a redirect. JPD (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Added an AfD for a kid who has apparently played for the US under-15 team. Tintin 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An article on this Derbyshire first class cricketer is up for deletion here [7]. Nick mallory 03:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I withdrew the AFD in question after rereading the notability guidelines. However, I don't understand the reasoning behind WP:CRIC, how making a single appearance in a single game automatically makes a player notable enough for a bio. Apparently, the same is true in other sports, per WP:BASEBALL, a single MLB appearance satisfies notability for baseball players in the United States. I disagree with both guidelines here, I guess I don't feel that playing in one game (unless that appearance is important for other reasons) is inherently notable. Having articles on players who have had extensive careers or made great impacts with shorter ones, absolutely, but do we really need an article for every single person who has had a minor appearance like this? If someone could explain to me the reasoning behind these guidelines, I'd greatly appreciate it Rackabello 03:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia is not paper - there's little harm in including less famous persons as long as the details are properly referenced and verifiable. Secondly, as for just one game, the requirement for cricketers is at least one game of first-class cricket which is a representative and fairly serious level of competition. Selection indicates you're not the average man-in-the-street. Finally, the value in including these lesser lights is having the complete set. Cricket is very much a team game comprised of individual performances. Historians and others are able to scan complete lists of team members from a particular cricket club or competition and be able to make comparisons - the fact that an individual played in a single match does not tell the whole story. —Moondyne 04:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We're really just following the guidelines at WP:BIO, which refer to "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport". So you might want to ask the general question there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Cheers! Rackabello 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, if you can, please do check out the current revision of Thomas Howarth and the talk page to answer the queries posted. I would do this myself but I am rather tied up at present. If you can convince these guys to not go through the same process and achieve the same result again, I will be very grateful. Bobo. 16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have created a deletion bundle for discussion under [[8]] . --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any connection between these AfDs and this edit ? Tintin 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, Tintin, yes. The edit you have highlighted was done by someone close to me who is not Wikipedia-registered. The AfD was long overdue and today I was in the mood to finally expose what I believe is a blatant piece of systemic bias by a certain person on behalf of his chums. I've had second thoughts about Philip Bailey, however, and should not have included him in the AfD. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter. —Moondyne 01:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We have an unusual problem here. There was a paragraph that read "His wife, Nandini, is a sociologist and a member of the Indian Censor Board (for motion pictures). His son Rajdeep earned a blue for Oxford University in cricket. He is now the CEO of the channel CNN-IBN. His daughter, Shonali, works on conflict related issues at the World Bank in Washington DC" which was added by an anon. The first two can be independently verified but there is nothing else online about Shonali Sardesai. Every news source in the net - including Cricinfo - seem to have copied this paragraph from us almost verbatim. It is probably true - because the first three lines are - but I had to comment out the line about the daughter to be on the safe side. Tintin 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Very sad news. I remember watching him bat in the sixties. He was one of the first Indian cricketers that I heard of. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether cricket player Javon Searles is notable enough to have its own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. If you can spare some time, please add your comments to the article's talk page. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a request for cricket lovers in England. We need snaps of Indian players as most of them inc. Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Dhoni doesn't seem to have good pictures. If you happen to be at any game over the next 2 months, please load the snaps in wikipedia commons. Thanks. --Kalyan 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be in the Adelaide Oval nets in January when India arrive. I got some of England in User:Blnguyen/Gallery last December. But I fear that there maybe 200+ Indian Australians also there and it may be difficult to get a proper pic. Those images of the England cricketers, those were about the top 15-20% of my photos, so I need a lot of trials to get one to work....you know how digital cameras are, they have this time delay, so you have to guess the click about 1s before the bowler lets the ball go....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What you need is a digital SLR! Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that for an active forum like this, there are very few participants who take part in FAC/FLC/GAC voting. A case in point is African XI ODI FLC which has received just 2 support votes in over 14 days. I know for a fact that there was a lot of debate in here on the template and when someone took the pains of implementing it, there isn't a lot of action (support/oppose/comment) on these noms. --Kalyan 12:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I didn't spot this; thanks Kalyan. All passed without a hitch anyway. :) AllynJ 07:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The person who blanked this deletion page on Monday is masquerading under at least four usernames: User talk:BlueJohnMine, User talk:PatsyHendren, User talk:Soames and User talk:JackHearne as well as under the 195.50.93.237IP address.

He is in reality the subject of one of the articles nominated with Ledbetter and he or one of his close associates has sent me a personal e-mail to tell me in no uncertain terms that I have no right to amend "his article" without his permission and that I am acting "beyond my remit" in trying to delete the articles about "prominent members" of the ACS. He has been served a number of warnings on Wikipedia besides the recent one about blanking the deletion page.

He is actively trying to turn ACS into a propaganda exercise by converting an objective article into a roll of honour for himself and his chums on the ACS committee. He has created several spin-off articles about those people and these articles are now being discussed for deletion because I think most of the subjects are not notable and I believe the creator of the articles has exhibited systemic bias on behalf of the ACS. To be honest, I am seriously wondering if the ACS itself is notable, bearing in mind that it is inwardly focused and relies on individual members to privately perform the research that it claims credit for.

I would like a lock placed on the ACS article for the time being to prevent it being amended by this individual who is currently trying to suppress cited information about recent developments in the ACS. I think this lock should be in place until at least after the Ledbetter discussion has closed and that then the whole question of ACS articles and linkages on Wikipedia should be considered by this project.

Could one of the admins please investigate all of this and take the appropriate action? Thanks very much. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about this, Jack. The whole Ranjit Fernando was pretty frustrating (especially at the time) and I wasn't even involved; this appears to be in a similar vein. Asking here for assistance probably isn't your best bet, though - I would recommend posting this story at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents. Considering the claim on potential sockpuppetry it may also be worth dropping a request at Requests for checkuser. Best of luck. AllynJ 07:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

On the face of it, those 5 accounts have mostly made good faith edits (with a few exceptions) and haven't attempted to influence a vote anywhere by operating as a block. There's actually nothing improper with one person having multiple accounts, as long as they don't pretend to be something different when the community is trying to determine a consensus. See WP:SOCK. I suspect that you'll not get very far or achieve much with a checkuser request. If you can, I'd try to ignore the emails and focus on making sure the articles comply with Wikipedia's WP:N and WP:RS policies. —Moondyne 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

One would like to think that the other members of the ACS are not aware of and would not approve of what this person is doing on their "behalf". If he refers to "his article", he obviously doesn't understand how Wikipedia operates. That said, I think that the ACS is notable and generally well respected, and merits an article. Though it may well be true that it has no more influence with the ICC than does the Barmy Army, as you put in ACS article, that strikes me as a POV and provocative remark and best removed. This shouldn't be allowed to develop into a campaign against the ACS. JH (talk page) 08:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The ACS article is full of POV and OR. It has no secondary sources and thus is against WP policy. In my opinion it should be chopped back to a 3 sentence stub. —Moondyne 08:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How does whether ACS has influence on ICC relevant to anything ? Its main purpose is research on cricket history, not to advise ICC, and ICC is in no way bound to accept suggestions from any outside organisation. ICC has a dozen committees of its own for this purpose. Tintin 11:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets should be reported at WP:SSP, I believe.

BlackJack's recent edits to the article are highly POV, in my opinion. See diff, for example.

I am worried that this is developing into an WP:EDITWAR, and that a real-world dispute is spilling over into Wikipedia.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to know of all these reporting options that are available but I think I'll try and leave things be for now. I've reduced the ACS article as suggested by Moondyne so that it has facts only and I've got one reference from Wisden 1983 around the WG Grace controversy.

The point made by Tintin is very good. I've removed the ICC reference from the article but it is a fact that the ACS committee at present is obsessed with the idea of getting into bed with the ICC and "influencing its decisions"! As Tintin says, the ICC advises itself. And the result is an event like the 2007 Cricket World C(ock)up.....

Thanks for your advice, everyone. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've culled it back a bit more. WP is not a directory of current and non-notable office bearers. —Moondyne

Which has improved it no end. I've found that the quarterly journal is a source for the dates and locations mentioned so I've cited that and removed the unreferenced tag. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi., i have self-nominated the 2003 Cricket World Cup statistics for FLC. Please review the article and provide feedback/support/comments on the FLC page. --Kalyan 09:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

We have in our midst a certain individual with several usernames who thinks Wikipedia is here to glorify his chums on the committees of these two societies which, whatever good they might do, are certainly peripheral to the business of scoring runs and taking wickets.

Do the cricket project members believe that these organisations meet the criteria of WP:Notability? Lets have a consensus about this and if the consensus is that either does not satisfy WP:Notability then it should go to AfD.

My own view is that the ACS is very borderline, especially as it is inwardly focused and does not actually do anything original. It may seem to do original work but in my view it is the individual members who do the work and then allow the ACS to publish it. I think The Cricket Society is marginally notable because of its charitable status but I detest the after-dinner guffaw image that it has cultivated. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that they are both notable. Certainly at least as notable as some obscure player who made a single first-class appearance. Let's try not to be influenced by some individual ACS member who's been making an ass of himself. JH (talk page) 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

John is right. Both are notable. Johnlp 23:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think ACS is notable enough to deserve a wikipage but its members - unless they represented a team in FC cricket or wrote books on cricket, are not notable enough. --Kalyan 09:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the Cricket Society's article does not mention its arguably most significant contribution, to instigate the compilation of Padwick's Bibliography of Cricket, the definitive work in the field of cricket bibliography, whose first edition was in 1977. I will put that right this evening. JH (talk page) 09:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the ACS is important simply because of the sheer quantity of information published under it's name. The widely accepted list of first class matches is an ACS list. CricketArchive is essentially a development of a generation of work by a number of statisiticans working through the ACS umbrella. It is even asked for it's view on statistical issues by the ICC. I also agree that simply being a committee member doesn't qualify as anyone as a significant person. Regarding Padwick: does anyone know if there is any idea of a follow-up to Padwick II (mainly 1980 to 1989 with earlier additions)? Nigej 13:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I recall, the ACS was also instrumental in the development of the List A classification, which makes it important enough in my book. Andrew nixon 13:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)