This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket
There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Hello. The merger is underway now but, although it should not "take years" (unlike some mentioned at WP:MERGE), it is a long-term task and I have other things to do. I will keep at it, though. I've done 1726, 1727 and 1763 but there were a lot of problems in the history article that still haven't been completely resolved, especially the lack of citations.
The important thing to note about merging is attribution, so that copyright is not infringed. Also, page histories and early contributions must not be lost. It is therefore essential to comply with WP:MERGE, even to the point of using the prescribed edit summary. If anyone else wishes to merge one of the reviews, please make sure you do exactly what the guide says. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lack of synch across early cricket articles. List of early English cricketers to 1771 has a later threshold to its successor that seems more logical given references to first-class cricket beginning in 1772. It looks as if 1763 was chosen to close the history because the Seven Years War ended then, but that is a poor choice because the war ended in the opening weeks of the year – a long time before the cricket season started!
Hi, all. Apologies for any inconvenience, but I've pinged you because you have edited this article in the last three years, and you may be able to offer me some advice. I'm here on behalf of WP:GOCE because the article has been flagged for copyediting. The request was raised by 78.144.169.217(talk·contribs·WHOIS), based in Northern Ireland, who also flagged History of English cricket (1751–1775) and Cricket in Ireland.
The article's problems go far beyond mere copyediting — of which there isn't much needed, to be fair. I'm listing the issues below:
I think a period of 25 years is too short for a history. This article follows History of cricket to 1725 which has an actual history span of over 125 years, plus what can be assumed about earlier centuries.
If the article were to be completed and improved to, say, B-class, it would be either a short summary or a massively detailed season-by-season compendium. I don't believe either option would be suitable.
The article was created nineteen years ago as History of cricket 1701–1800 but it has had a chequered history with several renames and changes of scope, so I am not really sure what it is supposed to represent.
As the talk page shows, fifteen season reviews from 1726 English cricket season to 1740 English cricket season have supposedly been merged into this article. Except that, for the most part, they haven't. So, what is happening with the rest of the information in those fifteen articles which are now redirects? I have WP:PRESERVE in mind here.
A partial merge having been done, it looks as if chunks of text have been lifted from the fifteen articles and just banged together in a sort of chronological sequence. The result is a difficult read without cohesion, as you just hop from fact to fact, often having to re-read several sentences to try and grasp what the article is saying. Compared with 1744 English cricket season, the GA, this article is sub-standard; and 1744 shows what can be done with the admittedly limited information that has survived. Also, there are 25 requests for citations or other unsupported attributions.
As I am here for the purpose of copyediting, I'm not sure if I should take drastic action beyond my remit. But, if it were up to me, I think I would scrap this article and restore each of 1726 English cricket season to 1740 English cricket season. I presume each of those have had their problems too but they must have one very clear advantage. They each have a defined scope. Also, it is unlikely that any of them could become excessively large or a bare stub. 1744 English cricket season has 1,950 words. Looking at the old versions of the fifteen articles, 1726 English cricket season seems to have been the shortest but it had about 500 words and was not a stub. Obviously, the season reviews would need work to expand and complete them, especially where sources are missing, but I think they are the best option to provide adequate coverage of this period.
As I said earlier, all advice is welcome. I don't feel that I can leave the article in its present condition. Thanks for your time, and best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion at Talk:History of English cricket (1726–1750)/Archive 1#Merger proposal. I'm not a regular sports editor, but the merge looks reasonable in principle to me - these individual years in which only a few scattered records are known probably aren't notable. The GAs has a major notability hook: 1744 cricket season in England is remembered for the earliest known codification of the Laws of Cricket On the other hand, the major driver of this merge, No Great Shaker was blocked for sockpuppetry and was suspected of being themselves a sock of an even older account, which left some projects abandoned. * Pppery *it has begun...21:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It gets worse. Most of the individual season articles, as well as this article itself, were originally created by the "even older account" I referred to earlier. So this is a war-zone left behind by someone creating a bunch of articles, retiring a decade later, then coming back as a sock to try to undo their own work. None of this history really matters, though - I'm weakly in favor of having one merged article over one for every year, but if that's unworkable so be it.* Pppery *it has begun...21:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pppery. I was right when I said "chequered history", then, but I'd only seen the various renames!
Anyway, given that we have those empty sections for 1741 to 1750, maybe we should rename it (again!) as History of English cricket (1726–1740) and retain the individual 1741 to 1750 articles? I think this would be pragmatic as it seems unlikely that anyone will ever complete the merge, while someone could potentially improve the article, as is, if it is limited to fifteen years. We would probably need to remove the unsourced content unless there is a workaround for any of it. Some of the source books were published in the last 25 years and might be obtainable – in fact, I'll ask at our library.
As far as copyediting goes, it's okay for spelling and grammar, although I'll read through it again. The prose issues are around cohesion and clarity of meaning. Thanks again. PearlyGigs (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked through the article apart from the "Other events" section which is an unco-ordinated collection of extracts from the season articles. While the spelling, grammar and syntax were all okay, there was a need to combine and shift sentences and paragraphs to eliminate duplication and achieve some cohesion. I think it is satisfactory now as a starter for ten to cover the 1726 to 1740 period. The "other events" material can be merged into it, and may provide some of the missing sources.
I've been away on holiday, so have come late to the discussion. Thanks for your work on this. Though I haven't yet had a chance to look at it, going by what's said here it sounds like it should be a big improvement. JH (talk page) 18:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again to PearlyGigs. Please see my message at the IP discussion page. Would you also please run through the new version using your proofreading and copyediting skills? In the main, I have addressed the missing sources and I have dealt with the defunct dropzone that was at the end of the previous version. It is not finished because there is little about the 1740s but it would be good to know if it is now providing a sound basis for enlargement. Beir bua! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.173.132 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and sorry I've not been around. I got your ping at the other page and replied there first. You've certainly made some big improvements to this. I don't know about my "skills" as such but I will read it all and dot any ayes. Thanks.👍 PearlyGigs (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
