Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Cricket - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Harrias (talk | contribs) at 16:30, 7 January 2014 (→Ongoing vandalism: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:30, 7 January 2014 by Harrias (talk | contribs) (→Ongoing vandalism: ce)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
Shortcuts
WikiProject iconCricket Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Cricket To-do list:
Article assessment
Verifiability
Cleanup
Infoboxes
Cricket people
Cricket teams & countries
Images
On this day in cricket
Umpires
Women
Update
Other

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Skip to:If you want to request for a batting graph for any cricketer, please do so at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket/Graphs/Requests.

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2019-08-16

Article assessment
Verifiability
Cleanup
Infoboxes
Cricket people
Cricket teams & countries
Images
On this day in cricket
Umpires
Women
Update
Other


Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95


This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Cricket career statistics

I'm not a cricket editor but I noticed most articles in Category:Career achievements of sportspeople are about cricketers. Other sports with many articles have a subcategory. I suggest moving the cricket articles to a new Category:Cricket career statistics, or possibly a more specific name. It might have parent categories Category:Career achievements of sportspeople, Category:Test cricket records, Category:Cricket-related lists. Then the articles could also be moved out of the two latter so they don't mix individual cricketers and more general pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Go ahead. Suggest same titling convention as basketball cat already there. So category:Career achievements of cricketers. Hey, why aren't basketball players called basketballers!? --Bill (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I found that out when I created an article with a "basketballer" disambiguation. I agree with Category:Career achievements of cricketers. StAnselm (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done - All the ones from the parent category have been moved, but there are a few entries on Template:International cricket centuries and Template:International cricket five-wicket hauls still to be added to the new category. In fact, there are quite a few lists on the second template still to be written. StAnselm (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I will let the cricket editors decide whether to remove the articles from other categories like Category:Test cricket records and Category:Cricket-related lists. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

County Cricket

Just a "heads up" that this aericle has been proposed for deletion. JH (talk page) 10:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the proposed deletion? I can't find it and there's no PROD notice on the article page itself. Richard3120 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The PROD has been removed. Harrias 21:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Not surprised - I agree the article as it stands is pretty superficial, but it's a pretty important subject to want to delete. Richard3120 (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Scoring_(cricket)#Merger_proposal

Hey, proposing Scorer merge into Scoring (cricket). See discussion open one week. All welcome. --Bill (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, merger complete. Only one comment. From PeeJay who approved. Cool. --Bill (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Queen's Park Oval

I've expanded the above, hoping to get it from stub class to B or GA class. Any thoughts thus far? Still a work in progress. --S.G. ping! 12:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Queen's Park Oval/archive1/ --S.G. ping! 14:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

List of England Test cricketers...

...seems to be in a bit of a mess with various IPs doing partial updates during matches, and some basic stats for current players being wrong. I'm not even clear which would be the version that one could revert to in order to rebuild it in a more orderly fashion. Any ideas? Johnlp (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas all,

Best wishes! --S.G. ping! 19:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And a Merry Christmas from me to all project members as well. JH (talk page) 10:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Australian first-class cricketers

Hi all, this article points the way to what may be a very useful reference! - Sporting history unearths stories of Australia's forgotten cricketers -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't wait, although without a West Australian contributor (Ken Casellas would have been available, I'm sure) I doubt that players from this side of the country would get much coverage. You also have to wonder, given how it is probably a labour of love, and they surely aren't going to make much money from it, would they have been better off publishing it directly on here, rather than waiting 13-20 years to publish in their own weighty volumes? Original research is unlikely to be an issue, as I they'd be relying on old published sources anyway. Would avoid any need to "limit the whole project to the years pre-2000 to stop having to add players." "Rick Smith of Launceston" mentioned as a collaborator surely must be a relation to our own Tasmanian User:RossRSmith who is also interested in sporting history. The-Pope (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Rick is not a relation of mine, but a good friend and colleague all the same. Have no fear about WA players - I believe the project is meant to cover every player since 1850-51 so all WA players will be mentioned. RossRSmith (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Good luck and Good Night

The invaluable Associate Affiliate has taken exception to me making minor adjustments to 13 of his 'edits' in a five month period as well as placing provacative remarks on his own sweet site directed at me and others. His intention is too remove me from the game so to speak through the estimable people who inhabit the dark spaces of this project. If anyone needs advice etc on a small matter, then I'll help out if I can through this page.CDTPP (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"as well as placing provacative remarks on his own sweet site directed at me and others". You're not the sharpest tool in the shed now are you, but thanks for admitting you are Richard Daft, afterall why would this section get your back up otherwise. I guess you'll be regenerating into your 61st incarnation soon? I better update that section for accuracy reasons. Of course, unless you have multiple personalities, I do believe all you'll find is satire aimed at Richard Daft, not sure where the "others" come into it. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Hey, question about eligibility for articles of people who made single appearances for Oxbridge, or even MCC. Project guideline WP:CRIN definition specifies "major domestic first-class competitions (including) the County Championship", while "major individual matches (i.e., played outside organised competitions) are those shown to be significant, especially if historically significant, by substantial sources". Then a bold instruction to "judge notability by reference to a substantial source that makes clear it is discussing a major player or match in historical rather than statistical terms". That last bit kinda kicks CricketArchive in the wotsits.

Okay, take someone like Charles Aston Whinfield Cooper-Key, born in 1856, who made one single appearance for Oxford against a Gentlemen of England team in 1877. To be fair, seems to have had one useful spell of bowling. But. Match of very dubious quality. Of little interest except it did take place. And yet Mr Cooper-Key is a "first-class" player according to CricketArchive. Reality check, these are just guest players or someone's pal. Remember it from my time at uni. You didn't think, "hey, I'm first-class", you just had fun.

Na? Developing Oxford players list and he goes into that but is he "notable"? Didn't play in an "organised competition". Can't be considered a major player "in historical terms". So. Does he warrant an article? I say no. Realise consensus determines questions like this. Cool with that. But if consensus is that guys like these, albeit statistically first-class, are not notable? Should WP:CRIN reflect that? Should many existing articles be removed?

My view? These players should be listed but not have articles unless they played for a county team. Or took part in the varsity match which probably does assume some historical significance. Floor is open. --Bill (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been something which has been raised many times. I'm content with every first-class cricketer getting an article, be it for 100 appearances or one, for a major county or a one-off XI. I think if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair comment. But does WP:CRIN say every first-class player is notable? Answer is no. If standard is anyone who's played in what CricketArchive categorises as a first-class match, guideline should say so. It refers to something called "major cricket" but, hey, that is a non-term. Someone should review and revise WP:CRIN. I'll do it if no one else interested. But will ask for HE-E-ELP! too. Cool. --Bill (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
We've been round these loops many times before. Perhaps read the previous discussions before diving in. However un-ideal the current wording, it does at least avoid some of the pitfalls we've debated before. Essentially, first-class, List A and T20 cricket all conform to the highest level of domestic cricket and that qualifies anyone who has played one of these games. But WP:CRIN's "authority" derives from WP:ATH and that in turn is a sub-set of WP:GNG... there's a minefield here, and you wander into it at your peril. WP:BROKE also applies here. Johnlp (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Are we assuming participants in the female equivalents are also notable? Hack (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why not. There are far fewer women's first-class and List A matches, so we wouldn't be giving undue weight to the women's game by also attributing notability to any woman who has played in one of those matches. – PeeJay 12:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Johnlp (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

One thing to say, and I don't disagree with Bill, is that 'one first class match makes notability'criteria is far easier to rationalise than "X" number of matches makes notability, because what would X be? Who says that someone with fifteen Oxford Uni caps is notable but five games for Kent in the 1880s not? etc. etc. Zero to one is a far stricter and more black/white a definition than 5, 10, 15, and when, for what team, etc. I don't believe that this alone is a fair rationale for keeping the current system, however "in the real world" it may end up being one. Furthermore, many people with one "first class" cap may have substantial club cricket or other claims for notability that can be used to flesh out articles from one-line stubs. Club cricket is not notable on its own to pass GNG, however it can be used to expand articles otherwise severely lacking in content due to single or low numbers of FC caps. Likewise many crickets did other things in their lives, particularly the amateurs that Bill alludes to above. And that can be researched and included. Just two thoughts. --S.G. ping! 19:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey again. First. All the best to everyone here in 2014. WP:GNG? Deffo a minefield. But! Impacts this project not one tiny jot. Why? CA must be a "reliable source" and if it devotes several pages (my friend Mr Cooper-Key has a baker's dozen or more) to a guy who played in what it terms a first-class match.... Hey, that is "significant coverage" (within the limits of current knowledge) and the guy is notable. Cool. Reading WP:CRIN ve-r-r-r-r-y slowly, I figure you've taken first-class as a given and your real purpose is to assert notability for significant people who didn't play in a first-class match. Yes? Hence the references to Kent players in the days of Queen Anne or whenever. Cool with that. History buff selbst. When I did the Sussex players, only one redlink predating the county club so you guys sure done your history homework. Teacher pleased. Again, I agree with x=1 or next stop is x=πr2 and going round in circles. And, as SG says, GNG does make allowance for extra info like club cricket.
Okay, happy now, next on to-do list is an article for Charles Aston Whinfield Cooper-Key. Bis bald. --Bill (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I really wish you had couched this piece in English - without being silly in anyway, the tone you have adopted rather obscures the point you are making.

English first-class team records

I'm currently constructing a list of English first-class teams who have played first-class from 1772 to the present day. The list will have the first-class span, number of matches played, number won lost, drawn, ect, as well as their win percentage. This is easy to work out for some teams, but others like MCC it might prove hard unless I go through each match and work it out! Does anybody have any up-to-date statistics on how many first-class matches teams like MCC or Cambridge University have played/won/drawn/lost/tied? Also what shall I also include team wise?

  • Shall I include Scotland when playing matches in England prior to 1992? I currently don't have Scotland on the list.
  • I've included Wales, afterall it's England and Wales, thus I've also included South Wales and Glamorgan.
  • Australian Imperial Forces, as it played all its first-class matches in England. Should it and similar teams be included on an English first-class team list?
  • I'm exluding from the statistics matches that were played outside of England or Wales, such as MCC v Durham in 2010

It's very much a bare bones and a work in progress at the moment, but tips appreciated, particularly as I'm not looking forward to trolling through hundreds of scorecards! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Use the list on cricketarchive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.166.99 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Australian Imperial Forces, as it played all its first-class matches in England. Should it and similar teams be included on an English first-class team list?" I'd say no. Playing matches in England (even all your matches) is not the same thing as being an English team. Also maybe it would be better to make the list "list of British first-class teams", to avoid the problem with Wales and to allow you to include Scotland. (Though there might still be a problem with Ireland.) JH (talk page) 09:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

They were a touring team - see list on cricketarchive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.166.99 (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Australian Imperial Forces did not play all its matches in Britain. They did a half-world tour. Played in South Africa and in Australia itself. Touring team anyway like IP says. Their services team in 1945 went round the world too. Need to define your scope. England and Wales? Or British Isles? Must include Glamorgan so Wales is in. Don't see how you can leave Scotland or Ireland out so, yeah, British Isles. Cool. But. Beats me how you'll account for all occasional teams. Good luck. --Bill (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey again. Just looking through teams at top end of your list. 18th century. You have "England" up there and it links to Test team formed in 1877. You need another article for "non-international England" like the category you already have for those guys. One thing. Spotted "All England Eleven" lower down but that isn't same thing either. --Bill (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
A possible place to link would be England cricket team#History, which briefly covers "England" teams prior to Test cricket. JH (talk page) 10:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
And following some links from that section → Eureka! All-England cricket teams. Needs work but historical basis there. 1739? Wow! Yeah, but this is generic for such teams set up as specifics by Clarke, Wisden & Co. Cool. --Bill (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I'll remove the touring teams (Aus Imperial and Dominions) and look to expand to include Scotland too. There's a few things that have cropped up though! CA lists the first-class debut of Kent as being in 1806, however I was under the impression Kent County Cricket Club was formed in 1842 and its first-class debut was in that same year. Up until that point various Kent county cricket teams had been the county representative side? The same is true with Sussex as well, which has different dates. All somewhat confusing! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, CA wrong with dates for Kent and Sussex. SxCCC began in 1839. KCCC in 1842. Before that were pre-club teams usually first-class by different organisers. Found Kent teams 1773 to 1796 so how do they get 1806!? CA not good. And crap site for browsing. Stuck with it unless you have massive cricket library to hand. Had to use their lists yesterday to improve All-England cricket teams. They've handled those badly too. Not surprised you confused. --Bill (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That's going to make adding up the matches played and working out the win/loss/draw/ect rather difficult. I'm surprised neither CI or CA has an overall results for record for MCC, after all it's played hundreds of first-class matches. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

West Indies women's cricket team T20I record?

ESPNcricinfo says they played 61 T20 matches, won 58 games and no losses , . But when I looked the records for the players captained the team, they have stats that lost more than a single game . Can someone figure this out? Thanks! FairyTailRocks (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You did not noticed the Winner column here. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 07:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no "Winner" column on that page. The "Result" field shows 58 wins, two ties and one N/R for me. I see it now. Hack (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The report is on matches involving the West Indies women. But it isn't from their point of view. So 58 matches were won. But not necessarily by the West Indies. If you look at the second link, the "winner" column states which team won: often the WI opponents. Harrias 07:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a more useful page. Harrias 07:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay I did not noticed the "winners" column, I was focused on the first link that I taught they haven't lost in a match. But anyways, thanks for the help! FairyTailRocks (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

T20I template?

There is a discussion going on at Category talk:Cricket navigational boxes about having a navigational box for T20I cricket along the same lines as Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50. StAnselm (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism

As our watchlist no longer appears to be working, just a heads up that Daft is back and vandalising articles under the 86.138.166.00 IP range, he is targeting mostly articles I have created/edited, but who knows, he might feel the need to attack a few more. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think I may be around and can help, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page directing me accordingly, I'll do the dirty work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks TRM, will do :) Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Whatever the provocation (which I can see has indeed been severe), the vile rejoinder left on the talk page of one of the offending IP addresses has no place in WP. Johnlp (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
What a happy little corner of WP we are. I have blocked both the IP in question, and Howzat?Out!Out!Out! for their interactions. I'm sure I'll live to regret getting involved, but there we go. Harrias 16:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Categories: