Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

Australian cricket team in England in 1948

39 articles

1948 Ashes series

First Test

Second Test

Third Test

Fourth Test

Fifth Test

Don Bradman

Lindsay Hassett

Sid Barnes

Bill Brown

Ron Hamence

Neil Harvey

Ian Johnson

Bill Johnston

Ray Lindwall

Sam Loxton

Colin McCool

Keith Miller

Arthur Morris

Doug Ring

Ron Saggers

Don Tallon

Ernie Toshack

Keith Johnson

Champion counties

JH has spotted an inconsistency between the list of claimants in Champion County and the honours sections of Nottinghamshire CCC and Surrey CCC re the unofficial titles between 1864 and 1889.

The honours sections use a list in CricInfo that is based on Rowland Bowen's researches in the 1960s but the Champion County list is one that WG Grace (helped possibly by his collaborators) created in the latter years of his career. We need to be consistent here so does anyone have any views about which source we should use? One obvious difference is that Grace was actively involved at the time while Bowen used reverse analysis and presented a retrospective view. On the other hand, Grace was probably quite subjective while Bowen was mostly objective.

A difficult one. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In cases like this, I generally think that we need to provide links to both sources where there is a conflict, and explain the uncertainty. Maybe a detailed explanation in the Champion County article, and footnotes in the counties' articles. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it overnight, I'd come to the same conclusion as Stephen. This morning, I had a look at the records of Surrey and Nottinghamshire in 1872, where Grace goes for Surrey and Bowen for Nottinghamshire. Surrey played 12 f-c inter-county matches, won 7, drew 2 and lost 3. Notts played 7, won 2, drew 5, lost 0. (If I haven't overlooked any matcxhes.) Both the matches between the two counties were drawn, though Surrey nearly won the second after following on a long way behind, Notts only having 2 wickets left at the finish. So Grace clearly didn't subscribe to the "fewest matches lost" viewpoint popular at the time. He may have gone for the side with the most wins, either in number or as a proportion of the matches played. Or he may have subtracted losses from wins. He may have used more subjective crieria taking into account the perceived strength of the teams that the two sides played. Or he may simply have had a bias towards a southern, amateur-led county over a northern, all-professional outfit. JH (talk page) 09:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A citation in the Champion County article - one which needed repairing - is for Cricinfo's list of Champion Counties from 1864 to 1889, which valuably shows which authorities favoured which counties in each year:Champion Counties 1864-1889. There is often concensus, but where there is not Grace often stands out as being in a minority of one. The authorities include other contemporary ones besides Grace, such as Wisden and the two Lillywhite annuals. So I think it is a mistake to give Grace's opinion primacy as is the case at present. JH (talk page) 20:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Grace had little input into his book(see the last biog sorry I forget author.) In the mid 80's WISDEN were going to publish an article by Peter Wynne Thomas which updated Bowen based on later research by several people including PWT. The main criterea was the contemporary opinion of the paers often summarised in Wisden and Lillywhite's Guide. Whatever the flaws in that system(there are a number) It was the system in use AT THE TIME. I think you have to go by that. I think it's the one on Cricketarchive.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I think WG's view was largely subjective. He would have looked at the broader canvas and remembered who his most difficult opponents were rather than make an objective assessment of win-lose-draw columns. I think on balance that we should defer to the CricketArchive list but the Champion County article should point out the alternative claims. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to stress it was not WG's view - He merely put his name to the bookFieldgoalunit (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've amended the 1864-1889 list in Champion County to reflect CricInfo and made changes to individual county honours sections accordingly (particularly Notts). Where there is no clear consensus in the CricInfo list I've said "no consensus" and assumed a shared title. Where there is a clear consensus but another county does have a claim (e.g., Derbyshire in 1874), I've said "Xshire also supported". Please have a look and let me know if I've missed anything. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine - Do you remember why it was Derby in 1874. I seem to think, I may be wrong, that it was assumed later by FSA Cooper that because of Leat lost but I'm not sure there was a contemporary claim. As I say, it is something in the back of my mind.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"With 3 victories and 1 draw in 1874, Derbyshire were considered champions, for in those days the team losing fewest matches took the title in the opinion of some authorities. With so few fixtures, Derbyshire clearly had an advantage and later Gloucestershire were named as champions." "Derbyshire" by Major D.J.Carr and Michael Carey, in "The First-class Counties" in Barclays World of Cricket, 1986 edition, page 400. Johnlp (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the reference I was thinking off! -BWOC was to say the least, erraticly compiled(You might recall the orginal had articles of a historical nature compiled by people like Henry Blofield!). When Peter Wynne Thomas compiled the list on ca - I think, in fact I'm sure, he said he could find a verification of the Derbyshire 'title' from a contemporary sourceFieldgoalunit (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boycott

I'm stuck on what to do. If we had just one image of him, we could probably push this for FA class. Gah! SGGH ^speak! 20:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried emailing him through one of his employers and asking him to release an image of himself under a suitable licence? It can't hurt and you may get lucky. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Are video captres considered legal? If so, there are vidoes on youtube like [1] from which you can get a decent capture Abeer.ag (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Only if the video is under a suitable licence. In the example you cite, the video is an obvious copyvio. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack Hampshire

I note that cricketarchive call him Jackie Hampshire. I know he hates this and was certainly not known as it by his contemporaries. I'm glad we have it as John.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The naming guidelines say that it ought to be what the subject is most commonly known as, therefore I think what he uses and what his contemporaries use probably outweighs what cricinfo uses in this case. SGGH ^speak! 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't take too much note of Cricinfo either (they have Harry Parks as "Henry Parks" for instance, which meant I nearly failed to find his article on their site). But if, as Fieldgoalunit says, CricketArchive call him "Jackie Hampshire", that would carry more weight with me. Hampshire might not have liked it, but I can recall that the media and spectators commonly called him "Jackie". I don't recall his ever being referred to as "Jack"/ So I would use "John Hampshire" as the Wiki article's title, but would note the "Jackie" nickname. JH (talk page) 08:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It can hardly be his name if he didn't like it. Clearly you didn't watch Yorkshire(I did) He was NEVER Jackie bt Jack as was his father. In fact if you have the JP Yearboos from the 70's, they make a point of thisFieldgoalunit (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1976 Playfair Cricket Annual. Page 151. "John Harry (Jackie) Hampshire". So I don't think we can deny that he was called it. But Cricketers' Who's Who, 1983, when he was playing for Derbyshire, has on page 170 under Nickname: "Hamps. Does not like being called Jackie." Johnlp (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I recall all three names being in use. I was never sure which was the "correct" one and personally I've always used John because that's as I first heard of him. I think that if there is disagreement about a person's used name, his real name should be the default, so the article should be John Hampshire. Whereas John Hobbs was universally called Jack, John Hampshire is not. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin required

Could we please have a block on editing History of cricket which has been attacked several times this month. I've just reverted back to 5 June to make sure all of the interim rubbish has been reverted. Thanks to those who have been doing reverts in the meantime. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Blnguyen. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Donald_Bradman#Some_pre_FAC_comments_to_deal_with

Please see the first bullet of this section, where Ref 3 of the article is discussed. What do you chaps think? I'd like to go to FAC today. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Davis only seems to have looked at five selected sports, so one shouldn't perhaps put too much weight on his findings in claiming that Bradman was the greatest sportsman of all time. Wasn't there some squash player who was unbeaten for many years, for instance? Bradman would obviously stand very high in any multi-sport comparison, but I'm not sure that one can safely say that he'd be top. JH (talk page) 10:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. How about amending it to "assessed by one statistician as..."? Sounds fairer to me. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made that amend. How does it look? --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Much improved. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Further amended, per Stephen's comments at the article talk page. --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have expressed my view on that more than once, so not repeating it :-) That was Heather McKay. I do generally agree with Tony's comments, except that I am happy about the first but not the second and third. Isn't this somewhat like having in Hitler's intro "Hitler was one of Germany's most notorious leaders, and he is held in the highest contempt by people all over the world; he had an international reputation as a mass murderer". I am sure that it is all true and can be cited but we need to e moderate with the language. Tintin 10:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tintin. Let's be clear - are you saying you don't like the Lead claiming Bradman was an Aussie hero? I could understand opposition to the international reputation (and I'm now inclined to drop it) but that's a separate point. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that there are too many superlatives, especially for the lead, packed together - which perhaps may be spread out through the rest of the article, or sometimes even left unsaid. "Australian hero" is the one for which I don't have a problem. Tintin 10:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So, if we ditched the international reputation, would you be mollified? --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Or wait a little to see whether anyone else share my view. I am a bit uncomfortable imposing my likes and dislikes, especially as I have contributed little. Wouldn't even mind dropping my argument if I am in a minority. Tintin 11:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Add me to the list who would be happy to see the superlatives toned down a touch. Support this change. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've commented over on Talk:Donald Bradman. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

←My point is that if you cram all of those puffy statements into the lead, it will reduce the appearance, the tone, of authority, no matter whether there's good evidence of their veracity. Why not distribute most of them more artfully through the article, where in more detailed contexts, and not so close together, their effect will be what you intend? TONY (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think consensus at the article talk page is indeed heading in that direction. As ever, even if I disagree, I'll happily go along with consensus. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Chaps, are you broadly happy with the edits I've made to the article in the last couple of days? I think they reflect consensus... and I'm more than ready to head to FAC. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy for my part. Time to list it, I think. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ashes" and the cricket article style guide

At the Harry Trott FAC discussion, I have been asked to use a consistent form for the phrase "the Ashes" ot "The Ashes" (note the capitalisation of the "T") I agree with the suggestion that we should at least be consistent inside each article but I would suggest a project-wide style would be appropriate. There is no guidance on this topic on the cricket article style guide at WP:CRIC#STYLE.

I prefer "the Ashes" but can see a rationale for capitalising the "The" if the trophy name is "The Ashes" rather than the "Ashes" Others thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You could also consider whether "the Oval"/"The Oval" should be capitalised or not at the same time :) Daniel (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that even in the main article on the topic both forms are used interchangeably. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use The Ashes and The Oval. In these cases, the definite article is part of the title. It's the same as for film and book titles; or for a sporting title such as The Wanderers which is both a football team and a cricket ground. If most people agree, I'll add it to our MOS. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Blackjack. –MDCollins (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also prefer to see it capitalised, for what it's worth. Daniel (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't really mind if we capitalise the The or not. But there are some cases where the phrase is used adjectivally – as in "fastest hundred in an Ashes Test" or "in the history of Oval Tests" – where a The isn't needed. Johnlp (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a point that should be mentioned in the style guide too. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've updated WP:CRIC#STYLE to capture these points. Please let me know if any additions or amendments are needed. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Englishmen with 50 or more Test caps}}

I don't think playing 50 Tests is enough of a big deal nowadays to keep. With the amount of Tests that England play, Pietersen has played about 42 in 3 years. So 50 Tests is 3.5 years of national service. There are already 50+ players in the list and in about 2 years, there will probably be another 5 or 6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

how about making it as "Englishmen with 100 or more Test caps"? We will have only 7 Good Cricketers, good idea ? Bharath628 (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That is already in existence. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. {{Englishmen with 100 or more Test caps}} is plenty. Moondyne 06:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• 100 is a good limit. 50's too low. Daniel (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (or rethink) The 100 cap template is grossly skewed in favour of the modern era. There could be some {{Englishmen with 50 or more Test caps pre-xxxx}} if somone can come up with a year xxxx which is in some way significant in cricketing terms (rather than arbitrary). Packer? When did England start playing more tests per annum? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true of any "accumulation record" of course- there are more matches in the modern era. But this is more of a size factor in this consideration. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think lists like this are pointless. They are the worst kind of statistics which give, as Roundhouse said, a grossly skewed view. Pietersen has played as many Tests in three or four years as, say, Herbert Sutcliffe played in two decades. If lists like this are to be kept they must be sub-divided by era. I would divide into two sections with the cutoff somewhere around 1965, which is when we started having these double tours that are the main reason for today's quantity over quality mindset. But even that is a weak compromise: I would delete all such lists, period. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditch it. It's become an anachronism due to the proliferation of modern cricket. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman

Up and running... --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rename

Have you visited Sam Staples? I can't imagine there can be much argument about the prime usage being Sam Staples (cricketer)... --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we delete the redirect and move Sam Staples (cricketer) back to Sam Staples. Had anyone thought that Sam Staples (town constable) were worthy of an article, as per the history of the page, they would have protested against the expired PROD which took place almost exactly a year ago. Bobo. 13:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Which I have done. Bobo. 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLRC of List of English Twenty20 International cricketers

List of English Twenty20 International cricketers has been nominated for the removal of its Featured list status. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of English Twenty20 International cricketers. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Donald_Bradman#In_popular_culture

One reviewer at the FAC has criticised this section: "Seems like trivia". There are similar sections in many football FAs (including some I've been involved in). They're less common in cricket articles I suppose because outside of the subcontinent cricket doesn't have anything like the same mass appeal as football.

My stance on this is that the information in the section is all notable, referenced and hangs together relatively well. Some of it is arguably not exactly pop cult, but section headings are rarely rigorous even at FA - they're there to give a reader an expectation of what he'll find there (and help him to find what he's after through the TOC).

In short, I think it's fine, but I promised to solicit other opinions and you lot are ruthless! Give it to me straight... --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep. In popular culture sections are the norm for historical figures who have been portrayed several times in film, on TV or in books. If you look at people from the American West like Wyatt Earp and Jesse James, you'll see what I mean. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Two more FAC issues

• "Only seven players have surpassed his total, all at a much lower rate Sachin Tendulkar (who required 159 innings to do so), Matthew Hayden (167 innings), Ricky Ponting (170 innings), Sunil Gavaskar (174 innings), Jacques Kallis (200 innings), Brian Lara (205 innings) and Steve Waugh (247 innings)" you don't really needed to list them all. Maybe just say who was the quickest.

Pondering this. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Next best is Brian Lara with 9 in 232 innings (4%), Walter Hammond with 7 in 140 innings (5%) and Kumar Sangakkara 6 in 110 innings (5%)." again don't need to list them all.

How many would you include? --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

One

Pondering this. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's useful to have the contexts of how his records dominate, in that those who come close in one respect (number of hundreds, or number of double hundreds) have taken more innings to do so, or a far lower %. We've listed all seven of the centurions and the next best three double centurions. The three is subjective, but seems sensible (esp. as once you go to 5 double hundreds, the number of individuals begins to rise quickly) the seven objective. What does the WikiProject think? --Dweller (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The seven centurions should be retained in full as they have passed a fixed milestone and it is useful for the reader to see how long it took all of these fine players to surpass Bradman. I have a slight doubt about the second group because it uses percentages and Sangakkara is still playing. I think I would remove the percentages and note that Sangakkara's total is "to date". Hammond as a contemporary is a must comparison. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The "second most popular" sport

Another series of reverts has been taking place on the cricket article over this question of cricket's global popularity status. I think we are going to need admin intervention before long.

My take on this issue is the following, which I've written on the article's talk page:

• This whole argument is a storm in a teacup. It doesn't matter if cricket is the first, second, third or fifteenth most popular sport on the planet. What does matter is that it is a major world sport as are (association) football, athletics, swimming and a few others. I think these sort of claims detract from the objectivity and readability of the article and from the credibility of the cricket project. Leave it out.

I'd be interested to know if other members think the claim is at all useful. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you wholeheartedly here. The claim would be hard to measure objectively and isn't really necessary. The global reach and popularity of the sport is better demonstrated in other ways. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I wholly agree. The number of countries affiliated to the ICC is not a reliable measure for the sport's popularity. Association football and athletics are surely both more popular than cricket worldwide. JH (talk page) 09:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the claim is very hard to substantiate. One may be able to find evidence for a sport being the second most watched, second most attended, etc, but popularity is hard to define exactly as there is no set criteria. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Popularity is a whole can of worms; how is it measured indeed. Playing strength by the population, viewership on terrestrial TV, satellite viewing figures, column inches in the newspapers, global interest outside the commonwealth, etc. It is something that is both hard to quantify and qualify.Londo06 11:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is however, it is THOUGHT to be the 2nd most popular sport in the world. Plus soccer does the same thing.--THUGCHILDz 18:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Thought to be". In other words, an opinion, which is POV. Is cricket more popular than swimming? No doubt you will say that more people watch cricket than watch swimming, but popularity consists of both participation and spectating. There are more people on Earth who swim than watch cricket and, to pick up the point by JH above, the same applies to running.

As the edit has just had to be reverted yet again, given overwhelming consensus both here and on the cricket talk page to exclude it, I really think we need an admin to deal with this and place some protection on the article. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes and is "considered widely" as in the soccer article not at POV? No one said POV's aren't allowed just gotta keep in NPOV otherwise with the sources it could have just been said it is but instead to keep it NPOV is where the thought to be come in. The same goes to there's way more people that swim/run than watch soccer but they don't do it as an sport. the edit has just had to be reverted yet again because some people keeps removing facts without coming to an solution 1st.--THUGCHILDz 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In the UK when such surveys of popularity used to be done ( in my youth!) the winner on participation surprisingly always turned pout to be Angling. I could never believe this and I guess times may have changed though, these days its probably Wii Fit! Tmol42 (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

B-class rating criteria

I've been using these criteria for a few weeks now. They were introduced to WP:CRIC earlier this year but are already used by other projects, though the details are rarely the same.

I think we need a rethink about both the wordings and the sequence. I'd like to propose that we change from this:

• 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
• 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and contains no major omissions or inaccuracies.
• 3. It has a defined structure with a lead section and one or more sections of content.
• 4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
• 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as infobox, images, or diagrams.
• 6. It is fully and correctly categorised and carries all appropriate templates.

to this:

• 1. It reasonably covers the topic using WP:NPOV and contains no major omissions or inaccuracies
• 2. It uses good English and is free from major grammatical, syntax and spelling errors
• 3. It has a defined structure with a lead section and one or more sections of content
• 4. It provides adequate navigation through links, categories and appropriate templates
• 5. It is suitably referenced and all major points have appropriate inline citations
• 6. It contains appropriate supporting materials such as an infobox, images or diagrams

The existing criteria 2-4 are effectively about the basic content. Is there enough of it, is it accurate, is it well written, is it structured? I would say that an article that fails any of these should be rated a stub and I think that therefore these three criteria should become nos 1-3 in the sequence. So, having first determined that the article is not a stub, the reviewer can go onto the more exacting criteria around navigation, references and supporting materials.

My rationale for wording changes includes the need to consider WP:NPOV and to check that adequate linkages have been created from the article to other articles. I think we need to say more about grammar and stress that we expect good use of English.

Please discuss. All ideas and feedback welcome. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The suggested changes seem sensible to me. JH (talk page) 09:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also consider including a requirement that any cricket terminology is linked at the first occurrence eg. not out, runs, etc. and any link to an article that isn't specific to cricket includes the appropriate anchor, eg. innings and batting average not innings and Batting average. Or is that more something for higher-class articles? Andrew nixon (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably more for FA, A and GA really but I think it should be included in WP:CRIC#STYLE. Certainly if I found numerous instances of terminology that were all unlinked, I would fail the article on point 4 because it does not provide adequate links. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)