Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. 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.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

CricketWatch or WikiProject Cricket

Two current templates for tagging articles related to the project are {{CricketWatch}} and {{WikiProject Cricket}}. What are peoples thoughts on condensing them, likely to the second, more versatile option. Is it possible for WatchlistBot to generate the special pages using another mechanism. Ansell 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm replying to this a bit late, didn't spot it. Anyway, {{CricketWatch}} isn't used for tagging articles, it's used for tagging categories, which has the advantage that every article in the category goes in. Thus there's no need to tag with WikiProject Cricket on the talk page. Sam Vimes | Address me 15:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the watchlistbot mechanism can use tagged articles instead of (or as well as) categories, but that seems a step backwards for the reason Sam said. Using tagged categories almost guarantees that the article will be collected into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Articles page. {{WikiProject Cricket}} is used for article ranking, so I think they are different things and need to be kept separated. —Moondyne 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! I actually figured out the difference soon after I posted the question and forgot myself to come back here and note that. Cheers, Ansell 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture voting

(Found some nice pictures and since pictures help a lot and are essential for understanding, we need the best from each catagory.)=Thugchildz

Please vote a picture from each catagory:

Main Picture

Reason: Close up picture, help get the main idea- bat and ball game.

1:

2:

3:

Test Picture

Reason: Show a wider version of cricket- umpire, pitch, players, red ball, and show test cricket itself.

1:

2:

ODI Picture

Reason: Show ODI cricket itself, white ball and show/differentiate the two batsmens and fielding team.

1:

2:

3:

4:

Twenty20 Picture

Reason: Show twenty20 itself, and shortness of it.

1:

2: (please add more)

Batting Picture

Reason: Provide the picture of batting.

1:

2:

Bowling Picture

Reason: Show overarm bowling, provide a picture of bowling.

1:

2:

3:

Fielding Picture

Reason: Show catching with bare hands.

1: File:Jonty catch.jpg

2: (please add more)

Wicket-keeping

Reason : Show difference between Wicket-keeping and fielding.

1: (please add)

Voting

Main: 3 2 2 1 2

Test: 1 2 2 1 1

ODI: 2 2 2 2 2

Twenty20: 1 1 - 1 -

Batting: 1 1 2 1 1

Bowling: 1 1 1 1 1

Fielding:~~1 1 1 1 -~~(deleted)

Comment: The Twenty20 pic does not differentiate itself from ODI cricket. In effect, a photo will never tell the difference because the major difference between the short form and very short form is the time, nothing physical. Gizza^Chat ^© 08:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The only way I can think of differentiating Twenty20 from normal one-day cricket is to have a photo that clearly includes the stumps used in Twenty20 in England. Andrew nixon 15:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

twenty20 has a smaller field than in ODI's and it usually starts in the evening.Thugchildz

Not always true. The ICC have specified that the field for Twenty20 internationals must be of the same dimensions as used for ODIs. As for the second point, that can't really be illustrated in a photo. Andrew nixon 23:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: N.B. the 'fielding' pic is an almost certain copyvio and is due for deletion soon. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 14:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I voted. I also struck the four fielding votes, as the image they voted for is deleted. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cricinfo pictures "fair use" to describe historical events?

I was wondering if we could claim fair use on Cricinfo copyright pictures under fair use to describe events that are not re-enactable: Historical events such as for instance, a captain lifting the World Cup or the aftermath of a Test hat-trick. I have seen people do this before, to illustrate historical events. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kapil Dev.gif is one of the rare examples when he lifted the 1983 World Cup trophy. Fair use is always a risk area though. Gizza^Chat ^© 09:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

First, it's important to note the caveat that any opinion on what is or isn't an acceptable claim of fair use isn't definite until it's tested in court. That said, we have a very clear Fair Use Policy that is purposely conservative in order to limit Wikipedia's potential liability, and this helps make a more definite decision.

My own opinion is that use of photos of individual, non-reproducible events would be justifiable under fair use to illustrate those specific events. We have to be very careful about sophistry: for instance, the use of Image:Kapil Dev.gif in Kapil Dev is questionable to my mind because it's actually used to illustrate him rather than the the event itself. (I think there would be a better fair use case for including this image in 1983 Cricket World Cup!) Since he's still alive it would be possible for us to come up with a free alternative for his own article.

So, conclusion: I think this would be ok as long as we do it carefully and sparingly. In order to protect Wikipedia's situation both legally and as a free and freely-distributable resource we need to ensure that fair use images are used as infrequently as possible. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know whether it's actually the case but there does seem to be rather more of this in articles relating to subcontinental cricketers than there is for other parts of the world. (Perhaps an editor with more experience in this area can say for sure.) I agree with Nick Boalch's comment above about the specific case of Kapil Dev, and would also add that I'm not entirely comfortable with book covers being used to illustrate a biographical article - see Henry Blofeld for an example of this. My (admittedly cautious) interpretation of the fair use rules is that such images should only be used when writing about the book specifically, not its subject in general. In the case of the Blofeld article, the book is not discussed at all in the article, which to my mind makes the picture's inclusion questionable. Loganberry (Talk) 16:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of using a book cover to describe a portrait of a cricketer and not of the book itself. That is a clear violation. However, as I understand it, I could use a picture of a player in action at some tournament, if the caption appropriately describes the tournament and the picture is located in a section where the tournament/match in the activities therein are also discussed. If you see Shahrukh Khan for instance, movie posters are used with accompanying text discussing his performance in the notable movies. I also did this with Ian Thorpe, an FA I wrote, where I used fair use photos describing famous races in conjunction with a section which describes the race in question. I think if they managed to get through FA then it is probably a good sign that I'm not cutting things too fine. I think that would mean I could insert a picture of Ricky Ponting lifting the 2003WC if I created a decent enough section about the 2003 campaign and appropriately related the caption. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cricket in Zimbabwe

As part of the overall restructure of the interantional scene that I'm doing, I've added domestic season reviews for Zimbabwe up to 2004-05 but it appears I can go no further as there effectively was no 2005-06 season and it would seem there will be no 2006-07 season either.

In the season template, I've stopped at 2005 and finished the template list with Zimbabwean cricket issues which is capturing developments in the meantime.

If anyone has any suggestions about how to address this situation and complete our Zimbabwean coverage, then please let me know as I feel that it is a loose end at present. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The domestic one day tournament was played in 05/06 [1]. No Logan Cup though. Worth an article just discussing the one-day tournament and the cancellation of the Logan Cup and the reasons for it. Andrew nixon 13:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. I've been expanding Zimbabwean cricket issues to bring it up to date. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it really hard to write about Zimbabwean cricket in an NPOV way. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And almost impossible to find anything we can reference that actually supports Zimbabwe Cricket to help with NPOV! Andrew nixon 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Cricinfo's review of this years cricket in Zimbabwe is here, if that is of any help. Obviously, it concentrates mainly on International cricket, but there is some mention of domestic 'issues'. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Cricinfo has a very strong editorial position on Zimbabwean cricket. Even though I agree with it, I am still uncomfortable simply repeating it on Wikipedia. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth having a look at what WikiProject Ice Hockey did at 2004-05 NHL season, which although for completely different reasons was also a non-existent season. Loganberry (Talk) 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The hockey case is indeed very different as it was due to a dispute and is similar to the NFL cases in the 1980s, although those did not cause the loss of the entire seasons. Zimbabwe is a whole sport in one country going into terminal decline: frankly I can see no way out of it while the current regime is in place. Many people think Zimbabwe should have full and even associate ICC membership removed. I suggest the best thing to do is update the "crisis" article each year from the latest Wisden entry on the subject. This is a logical approach if you look at the seasons template because we have a development era, then several seasons of first-class cricket, then a terminal (literally, perhaps) article to conclude. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Cricket civilizes people and creates good gentlemen I want everyone to play cricket in Zimbabwe; I want ours to be a nation of gentlemen." Sigh. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Courcy, the man who munched through an umbrella handle

In the article "History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883", I read this: "an Epsom stockbroker called Arthur Courcy, is said to have bitten through his brother-in-law's umbrella handle." Now, it is, of course, a famous part of Ashes legend that, during the 1882 match, a man bit through his umbrella handle in the excitement of the finish. This Wikipedia article is the only one in which that man is named. I find it a bit strange and would just like to find the source of that piece of information. Cheers Robertson-Glasgow 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that I've seen him named before somewhere, but I can't recall where. A Google search revealed a number of references, but unfortunately most of them seemed to have been lifted from the Wiki article. However one independent (I assume) reference can be found here. JH 09:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not an independent copy, it's taken straight from Wikipedia, and says so at the top. JPD (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my carelessness in not spotting that. JH 17:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the article history and discovered that it was Jguk's contribution. I left a note on his Discussion page a while back but got no reply. I see that he doesn't give an email address. Is there any other way that I could contact him? The topic in question intrigues me a great deal. Robertson-Glasgow 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One way of getting his attention might be to add a "Citation needed" flag to the article at the point in question. I think you do that by inserting {{fact}}

Cheers, John. It's been done. Robertson-Glasgow 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have managed to find the source of the whole thing myself. It comes from page 655 of Benny Green's "Wisden Anthology" (Queen Anne Press, 1979). How do I get rid of the "Citation needed" flag and put in an endnote? Robertson-Glasgow 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove the {{fact}} tag and add in your reference like this: <ref>Reference here</ref>. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. It's been done. Robertson-Glasgow 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Youtube

There were some discussions in admin noticeboards about youtube links. I didn't read it after the first few posts, but I assume they are not allowed unless we are certain about the copyright. Can someone who has followed the discussion update the rest of us on it. There is a youtube link in the Trevor Chappell incident that keeps coming back. Just wanted to be certain about the rules. Tintin (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. See the box at the top of WP:EL as well as WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted works. In short, any link to a copy of a TV program should be removed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive Talk:Cricket?

Is it about time we archived Talk:Cricket again? I bring this up because that ancient nagging thread about having Cricket be the insect article keeps attracting simmering comments by being there on the current Talk page. -dmmaus 23:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Thugchildz

Probably a good idea, but why are we discussing it here? You can be bold, and it it really does need discussing, it shoudl be done at that page. JPD (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I was hoping someone else would do it, as I've never archived a talk page before and would need to figure out how to do it properly. ;-) Okay, I've done it. -dmmaus 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates

Please vote for a cricket entry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamedog (talk • contribs).

Category:2005 English cricket season

This is a fairly sizeable category, including detailed summaries for each county's season (eg Worcestershire County Cricket Club in 2005), but there is no equivalent for 2006. It looks rather odd having such an effort made for a past season, but nothing for the one just gone! What should we do about this? Loganberry (Talk) 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It was basically the singlehanded work of Jguk and Sam Vimes, with a few of the rest of us chipping in. I think it was/is a great thing for Wikipedia to have, but by the end we were spending more effort time defending the whole lot from deletion from the 'sportscruft' crowd (partly because of what it was, and partly because the whole thing made extensive use of transcluded subpages) than we actually were on writing it. I wasn't surprised when no one was moved to make the effort for the 2006 season. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 09:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think 2005 was over the top but should be left alone. I think it was well-intentioned but misguided and showed a misplaced sense of priority. I certainly don't think it should set any precedent and if anyone tries to repeat it for 2007 I for one will oppose it. I am glad it was not repeated in 2006.

What we need for each season (and not just in England) is a general review such as 1961 English cricket season and alongside that a review of each tour such as Australian cricket team in England in 1961. For a notable Test series like the one in 2005 or the even better one in 1902, there may be a separate and more detailed article covering the series only: this may apply to a notable LOI series too; or to a famous championship season like 1905 when it was decided by literally the final ball of the season. We should not be reviewing a season in such detail that it needs a category to itself. Information about the county clubs in that season should be summarised in each club's main article: see Yorkshire CCC for a good example of how current events are encapsulated in the context of a club with over 140 years of history. Note the 140 years of history and bear in mind that all the clubs, including Sussex who are top of the heap at present, have seen much greater times in the past than now: there is nothing particularly notable about present-day cricket apart from the Australian team.

Personally I cannot believe that so much effort went into something (2005) that was contemporary when a vast amount of the game's history remains completely uncovered (we still have a yawning gap where the 19th century should be and the domestic cricket of Australia, India, NZ, etc. is almost untouched). We should be ensuring that we have articles covering every season and every tour and every first-class player in every country as a foundation for future development.

It is a fact that most editors would rather work on an existing article or stub than create a new one. Those of us who are prepared to create new articles must do so and we must cover the whole canvas. While the project remains in the design and development phase, I would rather see 10,000 cricket stubs of 1k each than 100 cricket articles of 100k each. We have got to create the foundation first. This idea of going for feature articles before we have covered the whole subject in overview is trying to run before being able to even crawl. For example, the misplaced priority of developing a "feature article" about a minor crowd disturbance in Sydney in 1879 and doing nothing at all about the early England-Australia tours (until recently). What about the readers who want to know about cricket? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Article naming for date intervals

The page currently has things like "2005-06" in examples. This is at odds with official policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) and for good reason, it is unclear and it is unbalanced. It looks more like a part number or an identification code than a set of dates. What is the reason for having a special naming system for cricket-related articles, or is this just an oversight? —Centrx→talk • 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that it's what's most commonly used - see [2], [3], [4], [5]. Against the argument of "precision", there is the argument of "the extra numbers look redundant". It was last discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/archive13#Style_guidelines, IIRC.

The guideline cited is not in particularly widespread use on Wikipedia, as shown by the fact that the two "examples" are redlinks. Sam Vimes | Address me 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of style (dates and numbers) is widely used, and both supersede the style recommendations of a particular WikiProject. Insufficient numbers look inscrutable and mismatched. There are still over 1.1 million Google results for "2006-2007 cricket"[6] versus 1.8 million for the other. Even supposing that "2006-07" be the appropriate name for cricket seasons, that would still require that "2006-07" be considered as part of the name rather than as an adjectival phrase. As an adjective, it would must be "2006-2007". —Centrx→talk • 12:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. The MOS (dates and numbers) says specifically: Do not use two digits to express a year unless at the end of a range, e.g., "1970–87" I don't suppose it says out right that you have to use 1970–87 over 1970–1987, but it certainly doesn't disallow it. Sam Vimes | Address me 12:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a flexibility that allows for its use where necessary, such as to save space for infoboxes and tables. You can contrast this with the emphasis throughout the of being explicit, the examples which uniformly use full years, and with section Ranges, which discourages even using intervals like this at all in text. The emphasis throughout the manual of style is to be crystal clear, except where necessary. The dating system used by this WikiProject is not necessary and is not crystal clear. —Centrx→talk • 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions page forms a guideline, not a policy, and as Sam Vimes says the shorter style is by some way the most common when referring to cricket (and indeed football, at least in England). Loganberry (Talk) 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which includes the naming conventions subpage derived from the MOS and which originally referred directly to the MOS, does form an "official policy", and Wikipedia:Manual of style (dates and numbers) are a style guideline. Both supersede style recommendations for a single WikiProject and apply to all articles. —Centrx→talk • 12:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/archive9#Terminology_again, after which is when it was first introduced. Sam Vimes | Address me 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This addresses the issue of a slash versus a hyphen. Having xxxx-yy is not discussed and seems to have simply been assumed. —Centrx→talk • 12:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the issue would have been raised if anyone had problems with it. A couple more: at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/archive7#Date_formats? and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/archive14#Season_styles_.28again.29. Obviously this isn't something you get a mass consensus over (people always love to quibble over tiny things, and always have their own opinions). Sam Vimes | Address me 12:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The main Naming Conventions page is "official policy", but the individual guidelines are only guidelines. That's wikilawyering, but it is reflected in the fact that the dates guideline has not been applied to most relevant article. The main reason for this is that the basic principle of the official naming policy is to use the most common name as much as possible, and 2006-07, 2006/7 and their equivalents are much more common than 2006-2007 as the name of the season. The example on the naming conventions page compeltely ignores the fact that dates are used to name seasons, and assumes that we are simply disambiguating by adding the years the competition took place in. JPD (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is used quite often. For example 2006-2007 UCI Africa Tour, Tenacious D 2006-2007 Tour, and 2006-2007 Dutch cabinet formation. The question is, why should which be used? Common usage is only one principle found in the naming conventions policy, and regardless things like "2005-2006" are no less common in English than "2005-06". The question with regard to making an exception for cricket articles would be if the proper name of the actual season is "2005-06"; would it be downright a false name to call it a "2005-2006" season, like referring to "Gray Technologies", or would it be simply like using a different adjective, as in "gray" instead of "grey"? —Centrx→talk • 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Where we use dates, they are (parts of) names not adjectives. For what it's worth, Wisden uses 2006-07 and the WikiCricket project has generally followed its lead in terms of conventions, although not everyone agrees with Wisden all the time. I don't think there is a hard and fast Wikipedia policy on datenames but I do think each project should be consistent. Somewhere in the archives of this talk page there is a discussion about datenames and as I recall a sizeable majority favoured 2006-07 over 2006-2007 and 2006/07. However, I'm sure we did agree to use 1899-1900 and 1999-2000 for clarity. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot recall the specifics of the discussions over which date format to use when I added the style guide but am sure that there was consensus for it at the time. At the end of the day, it is only a guide (which I do believe is consistent with the official policy per Sam above) and if anyone wishes to change any aspect of the guide, give us a specific proposal and we can discuss or vote. But for me, xxxx-yy is the most widely used and universally understood format for cricket seasons and is neither unclear or unbalanced. —Moondyne 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So all the sources that use "2006-2007" for cricket are in fact using the wrong name, e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]? It looks to me like they are just choosing to use the clearer, fully formed adjective. —Centrx→talk • 14:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably composed by non-cricket people, as they seem mainly about ticketing. This is the conventional form (either hyphen or slash) [12] which has been pointed out a number of times, it seems fair that cricket articles should reflect that usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.30.27 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that at least one of them isn't even talking about a cricket season? As the anon points out, quite a few would appear to have been written by ticketing or transport people, not cricketers. You may have a point that the season labels are not quite proper names like "Gray Technologies", as there are several formats, but they're not simple adjective telling you which years the even took place in. Instead, it tells you which season it took place in. So the Commonwealth Bank Series which starts on Friday is the 2006-07 Commonwealth Bank Series, even though it takes place completely in 2007. JPD (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether using full dates could possibly be incorrect. I don't doubt that cricket sources use abbreviated dates more commonly than full dates, but that is not the common format for dates in general and it is not necessarily appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I dispute your statement that the MoS guidance should "supersede style recommendations for a single WikiProject and apply to all articles". The situation where one field of endeavour has a conventional notation seems to me exactly the time when it's appropriate to ignore the MoS. As it says at the very start of WP:MoS: "Different Wikipedia articles are written with different audiences in mind, and editors are free to adapt their style accordingly. This manual [...] does not prescribe rigid rules that must always be followed." Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

At the expense of a general reader of this encyclopedia not seeing a crystal clear understanding? The title of a page is how it is referred to throughout the site. Should every reference in any article to a cricket season have "2006–07 Ashes series"? Should it be on the Main page that way? (It was.) —Centrx→talk • 18:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly did not recognize what it was, and I am not an idiot. Yet, idiots do read the site, along with people who do not watch cricket or football, and children and persons of all ages and abilities. Also, you quotation from the WP:MOS is fairly newly added, and I have not had a chance to review all the many changes recently. Different Wikipedia articles are not written with different audiences in mind. The very same audience should be able to understand the introduction to any Wikipedia article. This statement is simply false; its probable intended meaning is not bad, but that is not the same as what it says. You may also be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Manual of style bitrot. —Centrx→talk • 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The long form is non-standard, doesn't appear to be used by cricket, or (northern hemisphere) soccer, even on Wikipedia. Using it misses the point that it is not a "date in general", but a name for a season, and it is not likely to be typed in by anyone looking for the article. It is exactly the sort of situation where a different style is appropriate, as Stephen mentions. JPD (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it not the very same season as that used with a full year? "07" is just an abbreviation. —Centrx→talk • 18:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea that the MOS does not prescribe rigid rules is not new, whatever we say about different audiences. I don't see why the main page shouldn't say "2006-07 Ashes series", as long as it says something about an Ashes series is. The difference between "idiots" and general readers is not how much they understand, but how they respond to seeing a new sort of word/name/etc. Our audience should be able to understand the introduction to an article, but not necessarily already have seen all the words used. At any rate, it is not really fair to insist on a parenthetical remark in a guideline which isn't followed in many situations, and wasn't discussed when the guideline was approved, especially given that the little discussion that there was supported the abbreviated form for all year intervals in titles. I think there is an even stronger case for the short form in this situation, where the label doesn't always simply refer to the years in which the event took place. Yes, if you called the season "2006-2007" we would know what you meant, but it looks and sounds not only clunky, but more like a set of dates than the name of a cricket season. Is this less important than looking "more like a part number than a set of dates"? JPD (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If I read 2006-2007 I interperate it as meaning 2006 to 2007 which is not really what a cricket season means. Indeed, you could find in a cricket article something like 2004-05 - 2006-07 meaning 2004-05 to 2006-07. I would say that even in general use 2006-07 is much more common, for example in Australia the current financial year would be called 2006-07. GK1 08:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Units of measurement

While on the cricket style guide, I recently reverted a wholescale change in Laws of cricket, where an enthusiastic editor had changed every single occurrence of a measurement from "imperial (metric equivalent)" to "metric (imperial)". As much as I am a fan of the metric system, I think the laws of cricket should be stated primarily in imperial units, since that's how they're actually defined and written in the MCC document. Worse still, the metric equivalents we give are in many cases only approximate, and therefore strictly incorrect if used as the primary definition.

I propose that an addition be made to the style guide to specify that the first units given follow any official documentation. This means that official measurements for things like the pitch and stumps should always be given in imperial units first, followed by a metric conversion. -dmmaus 23:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If it needs to be specified, then specify it. It really is just common sense though, and already implied by the existing style guide. Metric first only applies when there isn't a clear reason to prefer one measurement, and definitions shoudl always be given in the system they are defined in. JPD (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Balls bowled/overs bowled

Hello there. I'm not a hugely active member of the project, but I do a fair amount of updates of players infoboxes after international matches. One thing I've noticed is that whilst the majority of players have the balls bowled field some have an overs bowled field. E.g. Mohammed Kaif. Anybody know why? Is it a different version of the template? HornetMike 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox Cricketer}} has an option "oversORballs". If it's left out, "overs" are used, otherwise you can set it to balls bowled using "oversORballs = balls". Sam Vimes | Address me 14:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Thanks, HornetMike 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Irish Infobox?

I'm planning to expand on the excellent foundations laid by those who have contributed stubs and short biographical articles for Irish international cricketers. However, I'm wondering whether it would appropriate/acceptable to create a new template specifically for this purpose, as Irish sources typically record a player's averages and statistics in "cap internationals" (which have ranged from 40-over matches to four-day First Class fixtures.) Many of these players appeared in negligible numbers of First Class and List A matches, and would be most closely associated (within the Irish cricketing fraternity) with their international statistics. None of the currently available templates facilitate this (admittedly specialised) requirement.

Any thoughts? DublinDilettante 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Irish cricketers eligible for articles on Wikipedia would only be those who have played first-class or List A cricket, so I'm not sure of the usefulness of such an infobox. I have been mentioning their total games for Ireland in articles, as well as any outstanding achievements in the main body of the article.

I'm currently in the midst of a project to create stubs for every Irish player that has played first-class cricket for Ireland, and it would be great if you could help. I'm currently working on Ireland's earliest first-class matches. Perhaps I could move forward from there, and you could start from Ireland's most recent first-class matches and work backwards, so we meet somewhere in the middle? Andrew nixon 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wisden

I'd be grateful if someone with access to electronic Wisden or hard copy, could check the volume referring to the 1988 Test series between England and West Indies. Does it refer to it as the "summer of four captains" or similar? Anyone else got (m)any refs for this name? --Dweller 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the phrase used somewhere, but it doesn't seem to appear in the 1989 Wisden's Notes by the Editoe, which seemed the most likely place in Wisden for it to occur. JH 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see it anywhere else in the 1989 Wisden, though there is talk of the captaincy issue on many pages. Nor can I see it on a cursory glance through 1990. I wondered whether it might not be a book title, but if so it wasn't in Wisden's book reviews in those years. Johnlp 22:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Later. Here's a link to an Alan Lee article written before the 1991 England v Sri Lanka Test which just may be the first use of the phrase. Johnlp 22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cricket stub sub-types

There's now over 900 cricket stubs, so these could do with being split up somewhat. By country would be one possible approach (starting with English cricket), or else by historical period, or possibly by form of cricket. I'll make a proposal in due course at WP:WSS/P based on what crunching the numbers reveals, but I'd be happy to go along with whatever this project would prefer (that conforms to the stub guidelines, at least). Alai 05:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As we already have biography stubs split out, how about categories like grounds, clubs, seasons and tours? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't carried out an extended study, but although splitting along national lines leaps obviously to mind I'm not sure it would apply well to many of the articles: for instance, English cricket team in Australia in 2006-07 would need to be stubbed with Australia, England and New Zealand in this model. From giving the current stub category a quick once-over, perhaps we could start with:

Team ('this article about a cricket team is a stub') e.g. Bahamas cricket team, Alresford Cricket Club
Season or Tour ('this article about a cricket season or tour is a stub') e.g. Canadian cricket tours of England, 1977 English cricket season
Ground ('this article about a cricket ground is a stub') e.g. Greenfield Stadium (Trelawny)

which would take quite a lot of the articles out of the main 'Cricket stubs' category. There are some biographical articles in there at the moment (e.g. Fraser Watts) that need to be recatted into Category:Cricket biography stubs. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A cricket-ground-stub (or cricket-venue-stub) in particular would be welcome, as I've been adding several of those of late and have been thinking about doing some more. If we use similar qualification criteria as we do for players (ie at least one first-class or List A match held at a ground) then we've barely started - a lot of grounds meet this requirement. Worcestershire alone have hosted first-class cricket at nine grounds in the last 100 years. Loganberry (Talk) 11:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Those sound sensible to me, and I think they'd all be large enough: there's something like 200 cricket teams, and 75 grounds. The number of season and tour articles is what I had in mind when I mentioned "historical period". In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that there's been opposition in the past to splitting sports-venues by sport (the thinking being that many sports grounds are multi-use), though personally I'd be all in favour. Alai 16:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As I am responsible for most of the season and tour stubs we have already and as I will be responsible for the hundreds more to come, may I suggest that tours are kept separate from seasons (for the reason quoted above by Nick) and that seasons are grouped by country as English seasons, Australian seasons, NZ seasons, WI seasons, Indian seasons, SA seasons and RoW seasons. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems sensible, especially as the "by year" categories seem to have grown enormously since the last database dump in November, which is all I have accurate numbers for. I'll probably just propose this in outline for the time being, and then see what's technically "viable" later. If you plan on creating large numbers of seasons-by-country stubs, at the very least an upmerged template for each of the above is probably a good idea, to spare unnecessary work later. (Though as these are well-categorised, I'll be able to do most of it by 'bot once I have a more up-to-date db dump.) Alai 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Query at WP:AN

If anyone has any info about the cricket transclusion problem referred to at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FDecember_16.2C_2005 please post there. --Dweller 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan/Darrell Hair

Someone, seemingly from several IP addresses, has been adding information about Darrell Hair offering to resign for payment to the Pakistani cricket team article. I've been reverting it as my position is that the article should be about the Pakistani cricket team, not Darrell Hair, however this person keeps putting it back in. I'm getting tired of reverting it, so any advice? Andrew nixon 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got my eyes on it defnitely, but he seems to only revert when I'm sleeping. I'll revert when necessary. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've noted my opinion on the talk page - perhaps if a consensus develops there it will end the issue? --Cherry blossom tree 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

National cricket team pages

I think it's time we attempted to reach a consensus on this issue. Irish cricket team and Namibian cricket team have recently been moved to to Ireland cricket team and Namibia cricket team, and English cricket team was moved a while back.

My personal preference would be to have say Namibia national cricket team, but I am happy to go with whatever others want. Andrew nixon 12:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'national cricket team' format doesn't always work: West Indian cricket team? 'England national cricket team' might also lead to arguments: is England a nation? Should it be England & Wales national cricket team? Etc. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 13:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well we have Ireland national rugby union team which represents all of Ireland, not a nation, and Great Britain national rugby league team, which represents the UK and Ireland, again not a nation. Consistency across the articles is all I want. The three options I see are: "Nationality" cricket team, "Country" cricket team or "Country" national cricket team. Either way, I think consistency needs to be achieved. Andrew nixon 14:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The West Indians are the killers as far as '"Country" national cricket team' goes, I think, for obvious reasons. (Perhaps we could use '"Country" international cricket team', though, to distinguish such teams from those in domestic competition?) I don't see any obvious advantage or disadvantage to either of the other choices. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 14:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I enclosed country in "" for that very reason. You could also make the same case for Ireland (and we do have Ireland national rugby union team), and the various UK overseas territories that have ICC membership. international cricket team just looks ugly to me. Anyone else have any opinions on this? Andrew nixon 14:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to prefer "Country cricket team". The problem with "Nationality cricket team" is that while England/English is obvious, the correct adjective for United Arab Emirates, Isle of Man or Maldives etc aren't. --Cherry blossom tree 16:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't with your use of the variable '"Country'", it's with the word national. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 17:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"India cricket team" and "Australia cricket team" sound odd, though others aren't bad. We should not sacrifice common phrases for less used ones for the sake of uniformity. Tintin (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's noun versus adjective. "English cricket team" could be any team in England while "England cricket team" is demonstrably the national team which is called England. I don't see any need to use "national" as it fails the West Indies test and in any case it is wrong because you would have to introduce things like "Queensland state cricket team".

If the article is about the 1961 English cricket season then "English" is correct because it is an adjective here; if the article is about the England cricket team then it is a name and a noun. We only add "cricket team" to the noun for clarification. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree with Tintin that it would be silly to title articles inaccurately (for instance, 'West Indies national cricket team') simply for the sake of conformity. Redirects are an obvious answer here: we can put the actual article at an appropriate title while still ensuring that a consistent naming system will get readers and editors to the right place. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. The noun is the natural way of saying it for most countries, and more correct because English cricket team could be any team in England. And the word "national" seems superfluous. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

FA campaign

Hello everybody. I am trying to start an FA campaign to try and get some 2007 Cricket World Cup relate articles to FA so that theycan be put on the main page to coincide with the tournament. What do people think of this? Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

good idea. I would say if we can get the main article FA thats the best chance for getting it on the main page. --Thugchildz

Bill O'Reilly again -- admin needed

Someone has just made Bill O'Reilly redirect to the political commentator again. This is against consensus, as established many times. The move needs to be reverted, but only an admin can do it.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with it. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ngb. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

He changed it back again immediately. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And I have reverted it back again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to push your own POV and trying to give the cricketeer equal notability. It has been stated over and over again that the commentator has infinite more notability than a deceased cricket player. Having the disambiguation page causes more inconvenience than it relieves. And because there are only two Bill O'Reillys, a disambiguation page is not even necessary. Simply have Bill O'Reilly be for the commentator, the one that 99.99% of people are familiar with, and then have a disambiguation note at the top of the article redirecting to the cricketeer for the 0.01% of people who want to read about him.Fistful of Questions 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Neutral Point of View, states that one or more points of views has to be fairly represented. In this case since both are notable, we have a disambig page at Bill O'Reilly. I fail to see how we are pushing any sort of POV other than balancing both. To counter your second point, please do mention where the commentator has 'infinitely more' notability than the cricketer. Thirdly, this issue has been discussed in the past see Talk:Bill O'Reilly, and by wikipedia consensus we retain the status quo. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what is known as a fairness bias, when you try to force a weaker point of view into being just as equally important as a more dominant point of view. This gives disproportionate emphasis on a weaker point of view that it does not deserve. Stop trying to force equality on a situation that inconveniences more people a thousandfold than it benefits, a small group of people who are trying to push an insignificant POV and are bitter about it.Fistful of Questions 15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How have you come to the conclusion that it is a weaker point of view? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious. Don't try to play around the obvious facts.Fistful of Questions 15:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not playing around with any facts. What may be obvious to you might not be a hard 'fact'. I'm afraid but you seem to be just trolling around and trying to violate consensus on wikipedia by acting unilaterally, and not giving cogent resposes to your statements. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite. It is not at all obvious to me why a US commentator should be considered the "primary topic" here. There is more discussion on my talk page, if you can bear it. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is going on in two places at once. Let's concentrate it at Talk:Bill O'Reilly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephen Turner (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

This is probably a good time to work on the article to eplain why he is notable. At the moment it is mostly hyperbole and assertions about how he is great without explaining it, etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started putting in more detail and structure, but have fairly limited time at present. Johnlp 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

County Squad Tables

I've been browsing through the county articles and realised there was absolutely no standardisation for squads. Some didn't have them, some had bulleted lists, some had a mess of things. I created Hampshire County Cricket Club#Current Squad based on the squad table on the GA India article. I was just wondering what everyone thought, with perhaps a view to implementing across all the counties HornetMike 18:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I like that style. The only improvements I would suggest is to clarify what playing role the captain has. You could either list the type of player the captain is (Captain and Bowler in your example) or list them under the correct discipline and mark them as captain in some other way. I like having international caps in bold. And thats about the only reasonable use of flag icons I've ever seen!

Other than that, it would be worth developing a similar idea for international squads. It would probably just entail swapping 'nationality' with 'domestic team'. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work, and I'd certainly be glad to see it on other articles. One small problem though, Sean Ervine and Nic Pothas are playing as EU nationals (they have Irish and Greek passports respectively) and not as Kolpak players. Andrew nixon 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. For the moment I've moved Warne into bowlers and given him a (c) next to his name. I'm not sure whether it looks OK, but "captain and leg-spin bowler" also looked a bit odd. I've removed the Kolpak stuff from Ervine and Pothas (I just copied what was on the page already). HornetMike 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done Essex County Cricket Club#Current squad as well. Will try and do them when I have time, although obviously if anyone else wants to do it feel free! HornetMike 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Indexing again

As before, Gene Nygaard is going round and round on Yuvraj Singh yet again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And Harbhajan Singh. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Some things keep repeating with such regularity that they can almost be predicted. The date format. Bill O'Reilly. Cricket the insect. This. It has been a long time since a match article was AfDed. There should be one round the corner. Tintin 02:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed the Dhoniexpress link got under our guard again.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Lists

You may have noticed two lists I created recently: List of Bermudian first-class cricketers and List of Canadian first-class cricketers. I'm planning on doing these lists for all six ODI-status countries and also for the USA and perhaps others. I'd like to get all of them up to featured list status in the future, so can someone take a peek at the two I've done so far and let me know how far they are from featured list status? I think the Bermuda one is closest now as it is red-link free. Thanks. Andrew nixon 22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I really would appreciate comments on this if anyone has the time. Andrew nixon 08:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to use inline references to get them to pass. I can do this if you need help. Generally, I would expect their stats also to be listed like List of Indian Test cricketers which passed FLC. It seems you could just scrape by into an FL simply with that, but I prefer to put extra info to beef up the main text, to summarise the general activity of the group like I did at Australian Olympic medalists in Swimming, eg, making notes about who is the most capped player, highest run-scorer, wicket taker, catches etc, and a summary of what tournaments there are at the first class scene. I guess it you can get away without it, but it's nice to have a smooth run with 8-10 votes and lots of compliments etc, instead of squeaking past with 3-4 :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Any help would of course be appreciated! With regards to stats, I don't want the lists to be bogged down with them like the lists of test and ODI cricketers are. Perhaps top-score and best bowling would do? For most caps, etc.. that's a little tricky as several of the players on each list have not played first-class cricket for their country but for sides elsewhere. Perhaps a section on who has played the most first-class games overall and who has played the most for the country in question? Andrew nixon 09:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think averages are important. Of the ones in the other FLs, matches, runs scored, bat avg, bat best, wickets, bowl avg, bowl best, catches and stumpings are the most important. Innings, not out, runs coneded, overs bowled, maidens, seem useless to me. That's just my opinion though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Summer of four captains

Unfortunately, we haven't been able to find sufficient refs to usage of "Summer of four captains" to justify the name of this former DYK article. Shame. In view of this, Rambling Man and I (who're trying to work it up to GA status) think we should change the article name to a more conventional season/series title, at least until (if) we find decent refs for the more jazzy name. I'd appreciate help with the new title, as it should fit with other cricket ones. Of course it refers to the 1988 England v West Indies Test series (five matches, four captains for England). --Dweller 10:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team in England in 1988. Not very exciting, I'll admit. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. And no, it's not, but it's verifiably correct! :-( --Dweller 11:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Medium pace?

Should there be an article on medium pace bowling? because at the moment is somebody such as Paul Collingwood, Ricky Ponting, Andrew Symonds etc are "right arm medium" and it has to link to "fast bowling". Or am I just talking crap? User:Speedboy Salesman My talk page 11:09, December 26, 2024 (UTC).

I suppose the problem is that "medium pace" bowling is just like fast bowling (seam, swing, cutters), just delivered a bit slower. Are there any special characteristics to medium page that deserve its own article? If not, we could add a small section to fast bowling. The two meet in the middle anyway, with "fast-medium". -- ALoan (Talk) 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh-ho - spoke too soon. Medium bowler (a bit like medium bomber). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "medium pace bowler" much more common than "medium bowler" ? Tintin 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that we have fast bowling and not "fast bowler" I'd have thought medium-pace bowling (with or without the hyphen; redir from the other of course) would be a better bet. Loganberry (Talk) 12:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Articles for John Scott

I see that there are articles for both John Scott (umpire) and John Scott (cricketer). Since the dates of birth and death are identical they must both be about the same person. I'd merge the articles myself, ensuring that no useful information is lost, but I'm just off to bed, so would anyone else like to do it? JH 22:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a go. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for having done so. JH 18:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture of young Sajid Mahmood a joke?

It is, isn't it? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It has come back. What do we do ? Ask for some kind of proof ? Tintin 09:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter because there's no reason to include it even if it is authentic. Why would we want a photo of him at 14? (I think one of the main problems with Wikipedia is that people believe that if something is true, it has a right to be in an article, and should not be removed. In fact, something can be true but unimportant). Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-locked the article since the latest IP to re-add the picture has also vandalised other cricket articles. It probably is a joke then. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Women's cricket

A point was raised in Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Cricket that the main cricket articles have ignored women. Between them Cricket and History of cricket have exactly one mention of women's cricket, and that about a 20-20 match, while they have references to cricket in America, Canada and even Samoa. Tintin 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

women's cricket is slightly a different sport. there is already a article about it but its really brief but it would be great if someone wanted to expand that. Also, it's like that with Women's football (soccer) and most of other sports. So I think its fair as it is but just expand the women's articles such as women's Tests which are different than Tests etc, its slightly different and would be great if someone worked on the women's cricket article and articles related it. --Thugchildz

some one needs to add a section about women's cricket in the ICC article as womens cricket now is governed by the ICC after the its governing body merged with the ICC. So add a section about women's cricket in that article.--Thugchildz

I recently created a sub-cat for the ladies under history and did what I could with the handful of historical articles we already have. We need much, much more. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Photos of England captains needed!

I'm shocked to find that of the four captains England had during the Summer of four captains, not one has a photo on his WP article. OK, OK, Goochie has a photo, but it looks pretty low res.

If anyone can remedy this, and place a photo on Mike Gatting, John Emburey, Chris Cowdrey or to replace the fuzzy image of Graham Gooch, please drop me a line. Oh, and one for David Gower would be nice too, while we're on the subject of England captains of that era. --Dweller 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not as shocked as I was by the inept performances of this sorry bunch in 1988. ;-) --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nelson's

I've always thought that 111 was Nelson rather than Nelson's. Does this article have the right title? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, should be Nelson. The terminology is usually 111 = Nelson, 222 = Double Nelson and so on. Andrew nixon 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is Nelson. Have moved and corrected it. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Test/ODI cricketers

There's some discussion on the talk pages of these articles indicating they might be updated automatically or done by bot. I was just wondering whether they actually were, because if not I'd happily do some updating once in a while (although I don't know where to find maiden stats, as they're not on CricInfo profiles as far as I can see. Cheers, HornetMike 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They're updated by a bot, but only when I get round to running the bot. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly, again

I've made some fairly substantial additions over a few days to the Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) article, with the hope that cricket project members will have less problem in future asserting his notability against those who believe the US commentator of the same name should take primacy. But I don't have much information about his later journalistic and broadcasting career, so perhaps someone who knows more about his post-playing days could add some words in there. Johnlp 22:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Indian cricketers etc

Is there any reason that many International players are still in the generic superset, even though they are already in the sharper cats like "Test cricketers" and "ODI cricketers" - There seems to be a lot of Test and ODI players also listed in the general cat, so I was wondering, if this was done deliberately? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be like that. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/archive21#Category:English cricketers, and the earlier discussion linked from there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lob bowling

There are two articles named lob bowling and underarm bowling, the latter much more comprehensive that the former. Would it be a good idea to redirect lob bowling to underarm bowling and make "lob bowling" just a section (or part of a section that deals with different styles of underarm bowling) in the underarm bowling article ? Tintin 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a separate topic to me, rather than a type of underarm bowling, so I would tend to leave them where they are. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Stephen. They are separate in that underarm refers to the method of delivery while lob refers to the trajectory after delivery. Johnlp 08:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please put Stuart Clark and Sajid Mahmood on your watchlists. The same set of users is vandalising both. The pages are sprotected already, but the users concerned have been around for long enough that that doesn't block them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)