Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 86

Archive 80

←

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

→

Archive 90

Super Over Template for Women T-20's

Need another template – based on Template:Super Over – that refers to Batter not Batsman, for Women's T-20 competitions. 12:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Either that or change the template we have. Batter is gender neutral and, in these circumstances, seems a reasonable term to use. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd change the existing template / module to either make the heading unisex or allow it to be overridden by using a parameter. Spike 'em (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Changed batsman to batter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

URRR ! That is not what I was asking for. I did not have a a problem with the word Batsman for the template as it applies to male cricketers. I am asking for an additional template, not to make the existing one unisex. Matilda Maniac (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the hassle of two templates when a simple change to one works. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Duckworth–Lewis method

Anyone interested, please see the WP:RM on this article. Spike 'em (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Hi all, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi cricket team records and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 ICC World Twenty20 statistics. Thanks. – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Flags to represent nationality

As per MOS:SPORTFLAGS, if flags are to be used in tables etc to show a player's nationality, they are to show the national team represented. Hence people should use {{cricon}} instead of {{flagicon}} in lists of players (as these link to the teams instead of the countries). I've just done some tidying up in relation to the ICC Awards announced today and replaced a few hundred. Spike 'em (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

and as an aside, I found this from 2010 and this from 2011 which introduced an error in to the 2008 awards data which had been copied without checking into 2 other articles (2008 ICC Awards and ICC ODI Team of the Year) when they were created, so could people also please check that content they are copying is valid too. Spike 'em (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

About Draft:ACC Western Region T20 2019

Hi all,
When this article was in mainspace - see the article history - it was nominated for speedy deletion under the WP:A7 criterion. I decided to WP:DRAFTIFY instead. I must admit that the WP:A7 tag - "as an article about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" seemed quite right.

• The text of ESPNcricinfo page for this tournament is No content available"
• The Asian Cricket Council website simply lists the teams. Are they Associate Members with T20I status?
• Should this be WP:REDIRECT-d tp Asian Cricket Council#ACC Asia Twenty20?

Your thoughts about this? Not Warwick Todd aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Cricinfo, ACC and ICC all list the fixtures for this tournament, but I've yet to see anything that actually offers any reporting / opinion / preview of the tournament. I would have expected the ICC to have some sort of mention, given it will be first official T20I played by any of the teams and they promoted all teams to T20I status in an effort to promote the game.

One article I did find was this one from Qatar. I'd lean towards having it as an article, but a couple of prose based references to indicate notability would be very helpful. Spike 'em (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Related question. When the ground gets added to List_of_Twenty20_International_cricket_grounds is it to be counted as one entry or two? Seeing as 2 games were played simultaneously, one on "Ministry Turf One" and the other on "Ministry Turf Two" Topcardi (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Added the Al Emarat stadium in list of t20 grounds with two separate enteries. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hamza Tariq World Cup 2018

I've asked for help over at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Hamza Tariq World Cup 2018 draft with regard to Draft:Hamza Tariq World Cup 2018 for two reasons: it's a draft, hence within their purview, and I don't know whether or not it's about anything real, which is where your expertise comes in. Is there a World Cup named after this player?

If it's simply neglected for six months it will be deleted per WP:CSD#G13 as an abandoned draft, but perhaps it can be sorted out more quickly if somebody here has time to demystify it over there. – Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Definitely WP:MADEUP. World Cups happen every 4 years, last was in 2015, next is this summer in England. Spike 'em (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The user has been indef'd too. The draft is simply a WP:HOAX. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Spike 'em: and @Lugnuts: Many thanks! – Athaenara ✉ 15:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Mohammad Arif

Just recalling that this article (well, Mohammad Arif (cricketer)) was deleted not so long ago. I'm not sure I could do it because my brain would get all the names scrambled, but there are five Mohammad Arifs who meet CRIN.

• Mohammad Arif (cricketer, born 1960) 1
• Mohammad Arif (cricketer, born 1963) 2
• Mohammad Arif (Federally Administered Tribal Areas cricketer) 3 (no birthdate as yet but one hopefully forthcoming in the future as player has made FC and List A appearances this season)
• Mohammad Arif (cricketer, born 1941) 4
• Mohammad Arif (Peshawar cricketer) 5

The reason I mention all five is that we've had people in the past who, when we've added new cricketers one by one who share their names with previously deleted cricketers, have prematurely deleted them without being aware of the subject matter or checking that the previously deleted article(s) do(es) not refer to the same player(s). Cheers in advance. Bobo. 07:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, I find this list quite handy when it comes to this issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I wish I were still keeping my first-class lists up to date. It's easy to do and wouldn't take long. Aren't our inclusion standards (or at least the players eligible for inclusion) massively expanding soon? Can someone explain that to me in plain English? I forget which countries are becoming eligible. Bobo. 20:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Associate Cricket

Should T20I tournaments played between Associates be added here or not? They all now have international status with records and stats being added to official stats on cricinfo. Discussion please!! Case in point: 2017–18 United Arab Emirates Tri-Nation Series was added to that particular season's page despite being played between Associate countries. There has been a suggestion by another user but can that be taken for all Associate related T20I cricket matches / series. Reason I am putting this up for discussion is because after 2019–21 ICC Cricket World Cup Challenge League starts many more things can come up. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The Challenge League is one-day cricket, so I don't see how that's relevant. But otherwise I think it should be done on a case-by-case basis. If they're between high-level associates with ODI status like the UAE and Scotland then they're probably notable enough to get mentioned in the season articles and have their own articles, but there's a ton of tournaments between really low-level associates like China, Thailand, Philippines, etc. that are probably not notable enough to get a mention. When in doubt you should look at sources. If all the info comes from scorecards from cricinfo it's probably not worth a mention, but if there's other news sources that mention it then it's probably notable enough. TripleRoryFan (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

So if ICC were to report for it then it can be included? My issue is because these are all International matches and since the page says International cricket in shouldn't they include them then? --Ankurc.17 (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of international cricket that doesn't go on those pages. I think the Icelandic cricket team went on a tour of England last year, but that's not going to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia because it was so insignificant. The point of those articles isn't to give a comprehensive list of every international cricket match in each season, just to highlight what the main events of the seasons were. The more minor cricket matches get added to the list, the more cluttered the articles get and the less useful they get. TripleRoryFan (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

International teams' notability

Can someone please explain to me in regular human words what has recently happened in terms of international players' notability? Is it the "Other associate members" which have become "eligible" for individual player articles? Keeping track of each national team is going to prove a tricky job, probably - especially on this massively increased scale! Thank you as always.

Please forgive me for repeating myself from above. Just to keep my brain in order! Bobo. 02:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bobo. Here is the discussion from August. In summary, for new T20I/WT20I players, the notability was updated to: "4.Have appeared as a player for an Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 in either a World T20 (men or women), Global Qualifier (men or women) or Regional Final (men only)". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Simply put any player who has appeared in a T20 International. Although, not looking forward to seeing the List of Twenty20 International records when the page begins to get dominated by teams being bowled out for 10, or players taking a 10-for against really weak opposition! StickyWicket (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Lugnuts and AA. Sorry for the delayed response - not been around all day. I knew the discussion was somewhere but I wasn't sure where. So the Associate members are those in the second column on the CA index. Like I say, with the number of teams increased on a massive scale, I had better get to keeping redlinks lists up to date - assuming you don't get there first, AA! Bobo. 17:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha I'm quite slow on the uptake on associate cricket these days, despite (as my username suggests) that being why I started on here. My two favourite associates are now Test nations! At the moment my time is taken up with my military cricketers project, but I shall return to associate cricket coverage someday!!! StickyWicket (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on List of fifers/centuries by ground: keep, delete or merge by country?

So I admit, it wasn't the wisest to start MULTIAFD, and I apologize. My reasoning for deletion can be found on this AFD page. It seems that all of them will be kept, so I believe I can start the conversation here. Others suggested this is a good place to start the debate. Please add your comments. I will RFC if appropriate and necessary in the future. ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've closed the AfD as per WP:SNOW. Schwede66 20:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep there was no good reason shown at the AFD to delete and there's absolutely no good reason to "merge by country". Stet. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: can you elaborate on why those are not good reasons? ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see this discussion being any different to the MULTIAFD you prematurely started. You were told there, and I can tell you again, we shouldn't lump these lists in a "one size fits all" solution. By all means seek out the outliers which may need to be merged or even deleted, and start there, but trying to find a generic answer for a non-generic "problem" is inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: why was the reasons "generic"? I don't get what you mean by this discussion not "being any different from MULTIAFD". Clearly I am not reaching for a generic solution. ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You're looking to frame an RFC to provide some cookie cutter solution. Deal with each perceived "problem" on its own merits. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man how am aiming for "cookie cutter solution"? Please try to explain your claims next time. I thought this is the correct place to expand the issue, unlike the AFD. Overtime, and with proper explanation, people will start dissecting each article under their own merits. Plus this is the place where people are familiar with cricket the most among others. ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Then explain the purpose of the RFC you would create, if not to create some kind of general rules-based approach which is entirely inappropriate, as you have already been told? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: you are basically nitpicking. I specifically stated "RFC if appropriate and necessary", which presumably I believe will be the worst case scenario. ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm answering the request for my opinion and I have given it. I think you received enough advice at the botched MULTIAFD, this is nugatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: well you are referring too much to the AFD and trying to attack me. Regarding your opinion, I clearly replied that I am not looking for a "cookie cutter solution" here. This is hypocrisy since your intial comment of Keep was one dimensional and did not start looking at the articles separately. You are not letting the discussion go forward. We need to starting breaking down and be more specific with the articles. ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. The issue is not mine in any sense. You nailed it in the last sentence. Be more specific with the articles, so stop this second run at MULTIAFD. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: this is no MULTIAFD. Jesus you guys will do anything to suppress issues. I repeated multiple times others can expand their points deeply. ImmortalWizard(chat) 06:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

You need to tone it down a notch or four. I'm not doing anything but expressing my opinion, as you made a general request to hear. You don't like it, I get that, but these levels of overt hostility will not result in a favourable outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any hostility. The MULTIAFD was basically closed for ME to start here. ImmortalWizard(chat) 07:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

If you don't see Jesus you guys will do anything to suppress issues. as hostile, there is literally no hope. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

If you consider that hostile then we both had fair shares of that. ImmortalWizard(chat) 07:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Folks I was tempted to close this discussion as this is an obvious AfD "episode 2". User:ImmortalWizard I understand your noble intentions but as you have already seen at AfD your opinion is against the community consensus. Community is against any deletion or mass merging. So you are only expected to get the same keep all type of comments on this thread as well. If you would still want to continue to do something about this, I request you to start a fresh thread with a possible proposal, that you would want WP:CRICKET to consider, folks can then comment on it and if need be you can frame an RfC after that discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: this is clearly not AFD v2. I initiated this inorder to divide the articles and if not, look at all the articles separately. We got ample time here unlike 7 days limit on AFD. ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

divide what exactly? How? Divide into what? Your section title and opening statement is clearly an unambiguous AfD v2 (for a month or 2). Accordingly you have received couple of AfD v2 replies as well. There seems to be a wide gap into what you  are intending and what you wrote while starting this thread. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray please start reasoning properly. You are entitled to explain either to keep all, delete all, delete some of them and keep others, merge all, merge some of them and any other variations are open here. Please stop referring back to AFD and carry on the discussion. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• "You are entitled to explain either to keep all, delete all, delete some of them and keep others, merge all, merge some of them and any other variations" = Unambiguous AfD v2

All right. Suit yourself. Please do not ping me again. I have this watchlisted. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep All based on my detailed reply Here --DBigXrayᗙ 23:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

New voice here. How about this? Could you please point to one of these that you think problematic and explain why it's a problem? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dweller: Thanks for your involvement, I was just about to do that. As an example, I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Riverside Ground, based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Aziz Stadium. The AFD seems to be failing and I was wrong to nominate that in the first place. I feel like here, it is the best place to discuss. My primary reasons for deletion are also based on the two AFDs. ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly struggling to see what you're trying to achieve here. Honestly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: what's best for business. ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I've got no idea what you're talking about. At all. I think you've lost your audience, certainly anyone who may have been sympathetic to your intentions. I'd suggest walking away and doing something else right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Well, I am trying to open up a conversation and you guys are hindering. I am just a random innocent girl from INDIA. ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's your attitude which is hindering. I'd suggest you move on now before this becomes a real problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: how come it's a problem? I am trying to discuss? It's not against the rules. ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has a clue what you're trying to achieve beyond what you learnt from the MULTIAFD you raised. Pack in the idea of a general approach and take it one step at a time, otherwise you're just wasting our time, being hostile and problematic. No-one will listen if you continue down this path. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man you are the inclusionist who's hostile. Pack your bag please. ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I simply responded to your request, which was to say deal with everything on its merits. You have refused, many times, to do that. You're the one in danger here. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: The Rambling Man @The Rambling Man: because of you I have to bring to the RFC. I hate to say this but because of you, countless editors I encountered has left for the ruthless aggression. Your 15 year tenure is a joke. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23

14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, and pinging me three times only actually pings me once, just FYI. Thanks for your feedback, I hope you can find other ways to express what it is you're trying to achieve here without alienating so many people. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks I am just saying how toxic people like you make the community. There is complete brutality. We people waste so much time here. The world neeither deserves or needs us. That's why Sanger left Wales. This is the dark side of the internet. Cricket is in the name of demons here. I don't know what to do. AI will one day destroy us all. And guess what- where does ai find most info - Wikipedia. AI does not need list of cricket wickets by ground. Their more important stuff like T series and Narendra Modi. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: what is the point what is the point what is the point of you serving 15 years here? It is inevitable that you'll be blocked one day. No one will remember you. You will have no legacy. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23

28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope, still not following you at all. And you really don't appear to be following your own guideline on your own userpage, but hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You used to claim to be from Bangladesh and then England. Are you sure you aren't from Yorkshire?Spike 'em (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Spike 'em yes I moved to England a few years ago from bd. And yeah my ancestors are full indian. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard appears to have been indef blocked. Does this automatically make an AfD discussion instigated by said user null and void, if not a speedy-close (so to speak)? I wonder why IW decided to do this having been a registered member for 4.5 years... Bobo. 02:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I still don't even get why they suddenly got so concerned about all the lists. The whole thing is just bizarre. Since they seemed to be the only person in favour of mass deletion/merging I don't think anyone would have a problem with a speedy close to any of it.. TripleRoryFan (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not surprised he's been idef'd. Some very odd editing going on, from jumping to badly formed AfDs to suddenly starting GAs. Anyway, I suggest this is closed/ignored and if anyone wants to tackle this, feel free to start a new thread. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

100% agree. This editor has been all over the place especially on this project talk page. There is still the matter of this AFD which is still open and that I recommend to be closed. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys, an update on ImmortalWizard's block. It has been reduced to two weeks. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Abdul Jabbar (Bengal cricketer)

This guy is 100 today - however, can anyone find any source to show he's alive? 100 is a rare age to reach, let alone in India. StickyWicket (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I did have a look, but could not find anything either. CA only has his birth details too. He probably died in the 1970s or 1980s, so pre-dates the internet age. Although I did hear that for his 100th birthday, he became a British citizen and is flying out to the West Indies this week to opening the batting... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I don't doubt he'd make a better opener than Keaton Jennings! StickyWicket (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

However, Bernarr Notley recently passed away aged 100. StickyWicket (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sabapathypillai Illangaratnam stats

Can someone with access to CA get the stats for Sabapathypillai Illangaratnam? I'm guessing he's noteworthy enough ... Roisterer (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

CricketArchive doesn't have him, at least with that spelling. Given I can't work out how else they might have spelt it, it's a dead end for me. That said, there is sufficient coverage in the references provided to suggest that he's notable. Harrias ^talk 07:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Here. Spelled with one L in the second name. Johnlp (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

That seems an embarrassingly easy alternative spelling. Oops! Harrias ^talk 11:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't access cricket archive (except so briefly that I think he's played one List A match. Can someone get me the details of the match? Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, one List A match, on 20th February 1977 for Sri Lanka in the days before they played ODIs: Sri Lanka v Marylebone Cricket Club. He also umpired in one List A match on 30th November 2002. JH (talk page) 08:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is the cricinfo scorecard for the game. It is effectively the England team, as England used to play tour games as MCC. Cricinfo player page for good measure, which links to an obituary which may help with the article. Spike 'em (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

West Indies cricket team page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Harrias ^talk 09:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No probs. And another one by the same (IP) user, this time for the 2019 Cricket World Cup. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sunrisers/SunRisers

Hi. The IPL franchise from Hyderabad was mostly known to everyone as Sunrisers Hyderabad though their official name was actually stylized as SunRisers Hyderabad (which is referred as same in their official website or their official twitter/facebook handles). So, does this mean that the article names must be present as SunRisers/Sunrisers? I created 2018 & 2019 season pages in which I mentioned in the article title as Sunrisers but mentioned in the article as SunRisers. Can anyone suggest on if I need to change the title name or change in the body instead. Thanks. Sa Ga Vaj 19:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

If most people (or more correctly most reliable sources) use Sunrisers, then using that is best. For full explanation see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME (I'm sticking that permanently on my clipboard now!). Spike 'em (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We also have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) - which may help in determining how to refer to such teams in the body of articles as well as in article titles. We can certainly mention the marketing stylization in the lede. - Jandalhandler (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:World Cup cricketers by country

Category:World Cup cricketers by country I think this category is not needed. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 03:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with you. We have cats for each tournament (Category:Cricketers at the 1983 Cricket World Cup, for example). As these are barely-populated, I don't think they're worth keeping. If there are no objections, I'll log them at WP:CFD in a day or two. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Over categorisation. Only one nationality category is required and that seems standard among all cricket biographies. StickyWicket (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I've started the deletion discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

2020 Women's T20 and 2021 Women's Cricket World Cup Qualification

As per WP:CRIC, Women's Regional Qualifier are not allowed. But we have a precedence of 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup qualification. As per today's ICC release, the regional qualifier this time would be the common for both 2020 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier and 2021 Women's Cricket World Cup Qualifier. Will the page be allowed and if yes, what should be it named as it is for 2 World Qualifier tournaments. Shubham389 (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure why the tournaments are "not allowed" - these are clearly on-par with the men's T20I regional qualification tournaments, which all have articles. Anyway, per the ICC's press release, I spent some time this morning getting my head around this. Although the winner of each qualifer will progress to both the T20 and 50-over qualifiers, the tournaments will be played in the T20 format. So I created this for the upcoming Asia tournament that starts in a few days. I've based the page title on the name the ICC has asigned to it in the diagram, and text in the article, with our naming coventions applied - IE having the year first, not last. I think I've explained it succinctly in the lead, that the winning team moves forward to BOTH further qualifiers. Happy to discuss further, if you have any questions. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing creating the page. I was just unsure as WP:CRIC mentioned for players as Regional Final (men only). And apart from 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup qualification, I was not able to find any other qualification page for women's. Shubham389 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

2008 Women's Cricket World Cup Qualifier and 2011 Women's Cricket World Cup Qualifier already exist too. Definitely no problem with it. That notability guideline is about player notability, not tournament notability. Harrias ^talk 11:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

AfD!

Hi all, Victoria Ground (Leeds) at AfD here, been relisted twice now. StickyWicket (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox question

Can someone fix County Cricket Ground, Hove? The firstwodiaway parameter needs to be International XI, but this is causing an issue, which I don't know how to fix. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem lies in {{infobox cricket ground}}. The code in there wraps a {{cr}} or {{crw}} around the values in the {{{firstmatchtypeaway}}} parameters. These in turn use {{Country data}} templates to get the flag information, and there isn't one created for International XI women's cricket team.

From what I can see the choices are

1. Find out if there is a way to use a dummy code with {{crw}} / {{Country data}}
2. Create the Country / Flag information for the team
3. Overhaul {{infobox cricket ground}} to allow for flagless teams (it is possible to override flags for home teams by use of a parameter, so could do the same for away teams)
4. Use the underlying code for the infobox to create a custom infobox on this page.

Without doing the research for (1), then point (2) is the quickest and easiest. (4) would probably be quicker than (3) but is far less resilient. Spike 'em (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

An example of Country data setup just for a cricket team is {{Country data East Africa}}. This allows {{cr|East Africa}} to display as East Africa, so could use that as a basis for a template for International XI women's cricket team and possibly World XI (cricket) (could create a redirect from International XI cricket team if that helps). Spike 'em (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I created the Country data to make it work: it gives an empty flag at the moment. I can't figure out how to make it use a gap similar to {{noflag}} rather than an empty image, but Hove and Aigburth Cricket Ground, Liverpool now have a reasonable looking infobox. There were a couple of other grounds which could have WODI parameters added, to show this team, nmaybe I'll get round to those later. Spike 'em (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Any chance that we could get rid of the flags entirely? Isn't there an MOS suggestion somewhere that flags are a bad idea in general, but particularly in infoboxes? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Richard3120 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be easy to edit the {{infobox cricket ground}} to remove the flags, but without a bit of extra work to deal with England and West Indies lacking "national" in their article titles it would be best to start with plain text team names. We should also change all the international teams articles, as they are ridden with {{cr}}s in the various first and last match parameters. Does anyone know of any other templates that exist that can either be used directly, or with a {{subst}} to add the correct links? Spike 'em (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A discussion on WT:FOOTY has brought the {{nft}} template to my attention, which will substitute a link to a national football team, so I think we could create a similar one for cricket teams. If flag removal from infoboxes is desired we could then infoboxes to replace {{cr|Country}} with {{crtl|Country}} or {{subst:crtl|Country}}. Has anyone ever used AWB to change just infobox parameters (as there will be many valid occurrences of the template in the main article)? I've used it to do global replacements, but not in just part of an article. Before I start, does anyone else want to comment on the desire to do this? I think I'll create the {{crtl}} (CRicket Team Link : trying to find a short acronymn that is available) anyway, as it seems to be useful to me. Spike 'em (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I've created a test template which I've shown some examples of in my sandbox. Is any interested in me moving to Template space? Spike 'em (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It would make something like {{subst:crtl|ENG}} save in article markup as [[England cricket team|England]] and display like England. Spike 'em (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the original purpose of this discussion, how does it deal with women's teams? Harrias ^talk 12:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The template I created is not complete, so could either create a separate one to use for women's teams or add some more parameters to the one I've created. The template is to help deal with the fall-out or removing both {{cr}} and {{crw}} from infoboxes, but is not necessary. The problem described above affects both men's and women's teams where there is no country data setup for a team used in the ground infobox. Spike 'em (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Lists of five-wicket hauls at AfD (again)

Please see the following discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Khan Shaheb Osman Ali Stadium
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Mahinda Rajapaksa International Stadium
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sheikh Abu Naser Stadium
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Punjab Cricket Association IS Bindra Stadium
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lancaster Park

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to WP:AGF on these given the discussion above; this seems to be going after the low-hanging fruit. These should be batched together and a proper discussion had on a possible criteria to include / exclude list articles like this. Spike 'em (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't help that at least two of the lists are hideously incomplete - the listmeistergeneral didn't bother to include the Test five-fors on them, so actually those lists have plenty to be working with.

The problems with coming up with a criteria for include/exclude are that it involves actually getting agreement about something, that featured lists like these exist so it's always possible to point at those and go "ah, but what about..." and that it won't stop them being created because the people who tend to do this sort of thing with lists don't generally engage in discussion.

There are certainly cases that can be made for both inclusion (notable achievement) and exclusion (NOTSTATS), which is why I'd rather these were dealt with individually rather than bundled. I suppose that if we were to say something like "at least 50 international matches must have been played on the ground, but we're grandfathering any featured lists that already exist" then we might be able to come to some sort of middle ground. I plucked 50 out of the air by the way. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sledging (cricket)

Bunch of unnecessary content fed in with quotes. Lists down some of the incidents and it's more like bashing other teams and their captains. Lacks NPOV and not worthy for stand alone page. I recommend redirecting it to Glossary of cricket terms. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To be succinct; it's never going to happen. To be more verbose; while it's far from a perfect article, it goes beyond a simple glossary entry and discussing the concept and history of the term. It does have more quotes than necessary, and could definitely be trimmed down in that regard. In contrast, there has been quite a lot of good in depth analysis of sledging written, which could be incorporated in to include the article. Notability is not dependent on quality. Harrias ^talk 21:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I cut out a load of the incidents of physical contact and send-offs neither of which fit the description of sledging to me. Spike 'em (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Map update

Does anyone know how to update this map, as sadly I haven't a clue! It was created by a user who did good work, but regretably ended up getting banned for sockpuppetry, so I can't ask them! The colours just need updating: Ireland needs turing red and the rest of Europe, minus England and the non-members made orange or blue. StickyWicket (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Same with this map, really outdated. StickyWicket (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I probably have the tools and possibly the skills to do both. What exactly needs doing on the second one? Is there a handy list of countries that can be used? For the European one, do you want to recognise Scotland and Netherlands as having ODI status per the list at [[1]]? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point, didn't consider the ODI status. I think on the European one red for full-member, orange for ODI and blue for other associates. The second map actually looks like it's been updated, but the template was using a previous version. I've updated the template. StickyWicket (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There are two different versions of the ICC map - the one you link to above and the one of the ICC page. The older one (the above one) is used on a tonne of pages and it might be worth getting it removed actually? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: - done the European one. I've uploaded a sample to here initially as there are a couple of slightly odd things that could use dealing with:

• Serbia is now an ICC member so I've added it
• I've kept Switzerland as a former member
• I tidied up some coastlines and so on in the process. The ring around Gibraltar has gotten lost though - some kind of ring might be able to be put back in to demonstrate that it's there I suppose

Now, the geographical oddities (humour me, I'm a geographer...):

• Kosovo - I've just coloured the whole of Serbia and not worried about it
• Crimea - we're showing that as part of Russia. That's contentious, although our article on Crimea has it as a de facto part of Russia since 2014 (but, then, Kosovo is a de facto independent state...)
• Faroe Islands - are they part of Denmark for cricket purposes? They were coloured orange on the original map (although a slightly different shade of orange). I can easily drop in and make them grey (I mean, I can't imagine the game is played much there)
• I'm assuming we essentially ignore North Cyprus?

Take a look at the sample and if it's OK then I'll upload it. The map is also used on Hindi wikipedia so we'll need someone to change the key on there as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: good work, looks great. I wouldn't worry too much about the ring around Gibraltar, a ring without a label mightjust confuse things! I think Cyprus play as an all-island team, though I might be wrong there, though our article says the team only represents the Republic of Cyprus in the south. You sparked my curiousity to see if cricket is played in the Faroe Islands - not a single hit on Google. Any fancy starting a team up there? Sure the ball would move some with the strong winds! StickyWicket (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find a team listed on the Danish cricket website - although, oddly, two teams from Malmo play in the Danish system by the looks of it (which must, logically, be stronger than the Swedish, surely).

As I say, I'm a geographer, Things like this interest me :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll get around to uploading this tomorrow (probably) unless anyone else has comments. Map is at this place for consultation. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Uploaded and the key's changed on the english Wikipedia version as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Just in case, if anyone needs any new maps in future, they can always post a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. – PeeJay 12:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: thanks for that, that's good to know! @Blue Square Thing:, great stuff looks good! Nice to see Ireland finally red, been a long time coming. I wonder why cricket has been taken up in the Balkans and Romania, but not in the rest of Eastern Europe? Interesting geographical distribution! StickyWicket (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Two AfDs

Hi. I've started the following discussions at AfD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nur Arianna Natsya, female cricketer playing for Thailand in the current Asia qualifer
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mudassir Iqbal, a bundle of South Korean cricketers who all played in the EAP qualifer

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Alviro Petersen

I've added the above player to my watchlist, as it seems Alviro Petersen has paid the article a visit in early Jan to copy and paste a more 'desirable' bio from his personal website. I've reverted, but suspect he'll be back! Just wondering if there could be some additional eyes on? StickyWicket (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: Gotta. I have your back. I am to really aware about the incident but I will surely be able to detect it. Will be useful if you can mention the paid contributor here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, this is the edit; here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A couple of things stand out : 1. whoever wrote the bio on his website has ripped most of it from here, with only a small amount of paraphrasing. 2. They can't even get his DoB right! Spike 'em (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: thanks! StickyWicket (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Haha DOB 25 November 2018... roughly when his ban expired, maybe he's been talking to this guy about phoney DOB! StickyWicket (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Cricket Archive

Have they removed their paywall, as the ESCape trick seems to no longer be necessary? If so, do all the links showing it as paid content need to be changed individually? Spike 'em (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm still getting paywall for everything but the front page. This has happened in the past. There's no harm in offering the front page for "free". In fact it's probably good for a website to "tease" people into accessing further content! Bobo. 12:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

On further testing, I'm getting the paywall if I use Edge, but not Chrome, so I guess my ability to see it is something transitory. Oh well! Spike 'em (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I wonder what would happen if I tried to use Netscape... my computer would crash after eight seconds because it was 20 years old I guess! Bobo. 17:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Using an old version of Opera (the old v.12 based on the original engine iirc) I can replicate this. A newer version will drop into the paywall. Not tried it with Chrome yet. Interesting - and rather handy I must say... Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You still have a Presto-engine era Opera?! Lucky you! Bobo. 13:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It still seems possible to find to download should you wish to try it. I use it for one purpose only these days (well, two now...) - it makes throwing different map overlays over the top of those on a particular website much easier. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Mind you I have a brand new laptop which runs things one zillion times faster than the old one, so maybe that was part of the issue! I know that Opera was the last browser for which Version 1.00 was still functional. Bobo. 13:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Women's international cricket

Hi all. Are women's international teams included in the list of newly-"notable" teams? I note that, for example, Namibia women played their first WTT (as per Cricket Archive terminology) matches in August 2018. Let alone the fact that there are a bucketful of women's first-class matches with incomplete scorecards!

Please forgive me for not keeping up to speed. Bobo. 22:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the top-level national women's teams would be notable, per WP:GNG. But finding sources on teams such as the Rwanda women's national cricket team, for example, may be more tricky. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure - I was really thinking as per CRIN. I'm not going to go over my feelings about GNG for the eight zillionth time... my query was really about whether both the male and female teams from the "other associate nations" had become notable at the same time. it's sort of pointless expanding the CRIN criteria if all we're going to do is exclude them by other, subjective, criteria. Bobo. 13:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Just for the sake of completionism, here are a list of Rwanda Women's cricketers:

• Margueritte Vumiliya
• Antoinette Uwimbabazi
• Sarah Uwera
• Josiane Nyirankundineza
• Immaculee Muhawenimana
• Diane Ishimwe Dusabemung
• Henriette Ishimwe
• Gisele Ishimwe
• Veronique Iriho
• Flora Irakoze
• Sifa Ingabire
• Alice Ikuzwe
• Diane Bimenyimana

Have fun, I guess! Bobo. 03:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo192: I was just looking at your old first-class lists... whoa there's a lot to go! StickyWicket (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not going to work on it any further - sick of bored exclusionists getting their way. But when you look beyond the County Championship, there's a lot of mileage still to be had. That's why I'm no longer advertising them on my user page. Not going to feed those who are hell-bent on destroying the project. Bobo. 13:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to think the recent deletion of non first-class 18th century cricketers and players like "Smith" who made one appearance in 1784 and nothing else is known about them, has gotten the exclusionists off our backs somewhat. StickyWicket (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Are these two the same person?

While getting on with my military cricketers project I created an article for the Combined Services cricketer Duncan Smith CA page (one FC appearance in 1947). Strangely nothing is known about him, beyond his name and that he served in the RAF. His appearance in scorecards as "Duncan Smith" made me wonder if he could be W. G. G. Duncan Smith, who served in the RAF at exactly the same time, though I'm not finding much to back up my theory. Wondering if anyone might be able to dig something up that I've missed as to whether these two are one and the same. PS: I've not checked the Gazette as Duncan Smith would be a needle in a haystack!. Thanks. StickyWicket (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in the bio of WGG Duncan Smith to suggest it's him. I've had a search of the British Newspaper Archive and I found a profile in the Shipley Times and Express (of 5 June 1957 – subscription needed, though), titled "Sportsman of the Week". This suggests your Duncan Smith was a Yorkshireman, who played for Saltaire and other clubs in the Bradford League and worked as a bank clerk in Wakefield. The information in the article tallies with your CricketArchive link, with references to him playing in RAF teams during the War and, the clincher, also mentions this chap as having having played for Gloucestershire 2nd XI while in the services. Jellyman (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jellyman: wow thanks for that! My eureka moment wasn't quite, but you've pointed me in the right direction! Thanks :) StickyWicket (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem! I thought searching for someone called Smith might be a thankless task, but I just put his name, "RAF" and "cricket" into the BNA and there he was! Jellyman (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

photo ID

Can someone confirm that this picture File:Rohan Kanhai 1962.JPG is of Rohan Kanhai - there is an OTRS ticket asserting that this isn't Kanhai but Basil D'Olivera. Nthep (talk)

Certainly doesn't look like Kanhai to me, looks more like pics of D'Oliveira that I have seen as dated from the 1960s. RossRSmith (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Doesn't look at all like Kanhai. Johnlp (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

These 2 photos are conceivably of the same person. Multiple copies of the handshake photo are on the web claiming it is Kanhai in 1962, including the source used by the creator of the file. Spike 'em (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to take it out of the Kanhai article as unconfirmed identity. Thanks for your help. Nthep (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

having searched for photos of Basil D'Olivera at same time, I now think it is D'Olivera too. The two them played in the same game in Penang in 1962 when the photo is said to have been taken [2], and D'Oliveria has sported a similar 'tache and his hairline better matches that in the questioned photo (e.g. [3]. Spike 'em (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've written to staff at the Australian War Memorial asking them to update and correct the caption for the photo in that collection. Pics of Kanhai in 1963 and D'Oliveira in 1968 were included in my message. Hopefully they'll get to it relatively soon and the online links to the photo can be corrected as well. RossRSmith (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I also contacted AWM and they've looked at the photo and agree with the consensus that its Dolly. They will update their website, once that's done I'll ask for the file to be renamed on Commons. Once again thank you for your help. Nthep (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

crickadium.com

Does anyone have any views on whether cricadium.com is a reliable source? Looks like possibly WP:UGC and lacking in editorial control. It has popped up as a source of some dubious records on Virat Kohli and other places. Spike 'em (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not particularly enthused by the following: "MORE ABOUT "ANALYSIS": Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book." I'd generally agree that for the moment at least, it is best avoided. If over the next couple of years it establishes itself, then we can re-evaluate. Harrias ^talk 10:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't stumbled upon that particular page! I've removed as many references (and really poor content added at same time) to the site as possible, it seems editors are linking to general team index pages rather than specific articles on there.Spike 'em (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm reverting a bunch more additions of refs by seeming SPAs. Spike 'em (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

100 over articles

Hi, I was just wondering whether The Hundred (cricket) and 100-ball cricket should be merged into one article? I appreciate one is the competition and one is the format, but no-one seems to be proposing to play 100-ball bar the ECB in this competition and the articles cover a lot of the same ground. So was wondering, for now at least, whether they should contained in one page? Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely merge, both have very similar content, with 100-ball cricket mentioning the tournament structure of the ECB competition, which should be irrelevant if there were multiple competitions playing it. Spike 'em (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Any chance we could delete them and the thing they're about? Haha. StickyWicket (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Much like James Corden and Bono, I simply refuse to acknowledge that this exists. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Merge discussion started. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Cricket in England page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on List of fifers/centuries by ground notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would suggest any grounds with less than 20 fifers will have their page redirected to respective ground/list by country ground article. For centuries, the minimum notable I would propose 40. Feel free to compromise. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Note: If there is a lack of consensus or no consensus reached within the new few weeks, I am entitled to ask for third party opinions in order to achieve one. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

25 seems a reasonable number, it's the current number for lists of centuries made by indivdual batsman. Of course, the only concern I have is these lists would unduly favour long-term international venues, e.g. venue A has held 50 Tests whereas venue B has held 5 Tests, naturally more five wicket hauls will be taken at long-term venues. StickyWicket (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Whatever happens, fifers should be allowed to have a less maximum since it's much harder to get fifers than centuries. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with artificially favouring older grounds. If a ground has only hosted a couple of international matches, either it isn't likely to host any more in the near future or it's extremely likely to. In the latter case, surely the list of fifers will increase in the near future until the ground is eligible for its own standalone list of international fifers. – PeeJay 17:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I'd argue it's sometimes easier to take a fifer, like in England where the ball swings alot, or certain subcontinential pitches that turn alot. All down to conditions and the quality of the bowler to exploit favourable conditions. StickyWicket (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed depends on the pitch. But have a lot at List of international cricket centuries at Lord's and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lord's, the difference is enormous. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That's another list that wasn't finished for Test matches. I believe there have been 183 five for taken at Lord's in Tests - including almost 30 in the last ten years. Personally I would go with a higher number than 25 for each, but I suppose that 25 has been established in the past as a reasonable number. It's a shame that the standard format for such lists is horrible - the five for in particular have far too much detail in them and require original research for almost all of them - specifically the names of the batsmen involved. Removing these would make the lists much easier to actually read as well.

I'm not entirely certain that we need flags either or the name of the team which won - and I certainly don't think we need the economy rate which seems to have snuck in (whereas maidens has disappeared - how odd). By including the non-standard (or on-traditional perhaps) statistics the NOTSTATS case is much easier to make. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd also ditch the list of victims from the fifer lists. Is there anyone out there with an appetite to complete any of the lists, as there seems little point voting for their continued existence if not? Spike 'em (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree on that too. The victims are unnecessary both for editors and readers. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I totally disagree. The whole point of the list is that the bowler took five wickets in an innings; the identity of his victims is far more important than the number of maidens he bowled. I agree with removing bowling economy, but deleting the victims seems like nonsense to me. – PeeJay 17:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to just putting the standard bowling figures (5/48 or whatever). But to me the addition of the batsmen begins to create an even bigger OR and NOTSTATS problem beyond making the lists, quite frankly, impossible to use. If this were a list by bowler then I might be more convinced of the merit of including them - but only marginally I think. For places like the MCG there are nearly 200 5wh - that's about 800 names. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, that makes sense. I still disagree with adding the number of maidens though. – PeeJay 10:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It just seemed "normal" to have O-M-R-W. I'd be perfectly happy to have one column with figures in (7/27 etc...) - although it's a little harder to sort - or just have wickets as a column. Perhaps that's the best way to do it - just wickets? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sortability can be forced using {{nts}} and {{sort}}, as is already the case in these lists, but I think it's quite good to have wickets and runs conceded in separate columns. If the majority think adding maidens is important, I'm happy to yield, but I don't think maidens are germane to the topic. – PeeJay 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've worked through List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Seddon Park and done the sorts of things discussed to it - removing victims and I swapped economy rate with maidens and cleaned down bits of the table. The names still need to have sortable added to them. I also rewrote the lead. It was only a little out of date, but I wonder how frequently any of these are updated.

It also lacked any reference whatsoever to women's cricket - which might have been acceptable a few years ago but is really quite difficult to see today. Made worse by the fact that the first fifer on the ground was taken by a woman.

I'll work out some sort of list of grounds and what state they're in and then cross post it here perhaps. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems much cleaner in my opinion. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's not get carried out like this. We need to focus one at a time. I would urge you guys to concentrate on setting up the minimum notability requirement for these lists. After that we can decide on what should be removed or added. One step at a time. Thanks. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It is up to individual editors how they spend their time: you are in no position to dictate how they improve articles. Your prompting has seen improvements to articles, leave people to get on with it. Spike 'em (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Have we not already determined the threshold? The usual number is 10 and personally, I'm happy to stick to it. – PeeJay 16:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to stick to 10 too. However, it needs to be treated as an official notability guideline here. To be clear, I am not "dictating" anyone. Wonder where did that come from. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You told people to stop improving the lists and focus on sorting out the notability requirements. People can discuss what they want and improve articles however they want Spike 'em (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly if you think I meant to disrespected others, I'm sorry. I just politely asked to "focus" and stay close to the subject I initiated for consensus, not "stop" looking for improvements and bring the other discussions. Not sure what you are trying to achieve by using ad hominem. It isn't about winning and should be worked through collaboratively. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I commented on the point you made, not you personally, so I don't see how you can consider that an ad hominem comment. BST & PJ seem to be working very collaboratively to me, so maybe you should leave them to it. Spike 'em (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily need to codify every aspect of these lists here. Wikipedia has site-wide policies for this exact reason. Just pinging @The Rambling Man: Am I right that 10 items is the general cut-off point for determining whether a list article is a valid content fork? – PeeJay 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it generally considered 25 for individual centuries etc... though? It seems odd to have different cut offs.

The basic problem that led to all of this is that at times 10 five wicket hauls doesn't appear to be all that notable. So, for example, at MA Aziz in Bangladesh there have been 10 five wicket hauls in Test matches. In the eight Tests played there. If we go for a stand alone list here we're essentially saying that something that happens on average more than once a match is notable. This may well be the wider case by the looks of it - both five wicket hauls and centuries don't appear to be that unusual at grounds only used in the modern day - the Riverside, for example, also averages more than one century and one five wicket haul per Test match by the looks of it. I have serious notability issues here in general. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It's possible that's just a statistical anomaly for those two grounds. Regardless of how often they happen, though, five wickets in an innings is a statistically recognised accomplishment, so it shouldn't matter to us how often they happen. The only thing we're deciding is how many the threshold should be for a single ground before we create a separate list article for that ground. Does anyone have a list to hand of how many five-fors have been taken at each ground? – PeeJay 11:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A basic look earlier suggests that it's fairly common on a ground - I don't have the numbers, but that was a gut feeling for a range of grounds (I may be wrong on that of course - I'll see if I can get a proper look at this sometimes over the next couple of days as the stats don't seem to be easily available; unless someone else does so first). I agree entirely that it's statistically significant for an individual player - it doesn't happen that frequently from a player's point of view. So having 25 as a cut off for that seems odd when on grounds it appears to occur much more frequently but we have a lower cut off point. Do you see what I mean? Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Considering these lists could conceivably be extended until the end of time, I don't think looking at fifers-per-match is a particularly productive exercise when it comes to deciding which grounds should have their own list. Even if the Riverside or MA Aziz have had quite a few fifers in only a few matches, if they don't meet the discrete threshold we establish for ourselves, that's too bad. They will probably meet that threshold one day, and then we can create list articles just for them, but just not yet. As a note, the threshold for players seems to be 15 fifers. – PeeJay 12:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Overall figure for Tests is 1.28 fifer/match. By country, it varies from 0.97 in Zimbabwe and 1.1 in New Zealand to 1.42 in Aus and 1.5 in Bangladesh. For grounds with 10 or more, range is from 0.7 in Bourda (Guyana) to 1.82 at Bangabandhu National Stadium. P.S. I wouldn't use these figures to determine list creation status either. Spike 'em (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(Sorry I missed out the second page, Riverside is tops with 1.83 fifers/Test)

Interesting. I was more wondering about the raw numbers of fifers at each ground though. Like, how many fifers have there been at the ground with the 20th-most fifers? – PeeJay 15:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

49. There are 10 Grounds with 80 or more, 19 with 50+, 35 with 30+, 49 with 15+; 58 with 10+. Spike 'em (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Does that include women's cricket? (which is *much* harder to find the damned stats for and has been ignored in many of the lists we already have) Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Men's Tests only. Extending to ODIs & T20Is is straightforward enough as stasguru lets you group men's games together, but would need a separate report for each form of Women's cricket. Tests account for 6/7 of all men's fifers but extending out to all men's matches gives:66 with 10+, 47 with 20+; 25 with 50+ and 7 with 100+ 16:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Stats are stats and a specific boundary should not be halted by the quality of the grounds. However, I think if a compromise should be made between 10 and 25, 15 or 20 will work just fine in my opinion (minimum 75 or 100 wickets in total). If a ground has a lot of future potentials, they might just be too soon to create. If the list exceeds the boundaries later on, it wouldn't be hard job to copy-paste the table from the page it has been redirected, and a lead with proper prose could be userfied and kept ready for whenever it gets its own page. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that if the stadium is well established, but yet to have enough five wicket hauls or centuries, it could just stay redirected for the time being. A list say of Lord's, is both large enough and contextually notable to have its own stand alone. The stat provided by Spike 'em is helpful for us to determine the middle ground. Both PeeJay2K3 and Blue Square Thing have brought up good points. I think the idea of contextual notability is extremely important beside the lists' length, since most of the them can easily be found on ESPNCricinfo statsguru. I would personally lean more towards the length aspect, since the contextual significance of most grounds are hardly established (except extremely notable lists such as those of Lord's, Oval, Eden Gardens, MSG, etc, mostly historically significant English and Australian ones).

Also, individual centuries/fifers lists shouldn't be treated the same as the ground ones, as they have variable significant. Example, Tendulkar scoring 100 centuries is far significant than any ground of that length. Hence, I would like any of fifer/century lists below 40 be merged with their respective ground/country ground list, based on Spike 'em's stats. Thanks. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Update - The issue isn't fully resolved. However, I believe a weak consensus is reached where participants have agreed for no less than 10. Therefore, I will soon start redirecting/merging articles those are below this level. If any objections, please let me know. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox clearup

As part of some work to tidy-up {tl|Infobox cricketer}} I discovered that the 100 or so cricketers who have the |deliveries=overs parameter set do have the number of overs bowled against the |deliveries1= etc and hence show the wrong data in the infobox. There is a list of them Here so if anyone fancies helping then please check the player against the sources and update the deliveries1..4 columns to show the balls bowled, not the total number of overs. Whilst you are there, please remove the |deliveries=overs section, as the parametere is no longer used (and hasn't been since 2009).Spike 'em (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

As a start I'm doing the A's so don't bother with those (as I already removed some of the data before I noticed, so am rectifying that). Spike 'em (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've done the last few and some odd ones. These are the worst I've come across though - some of them are a real mess. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:ICC Team of the Year

Hi. I've nominated this for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Aysha Naushad Khan

The above article is at AfD here. Thoughts please! StickyWicket (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

An extra pair of eyes!

Hi all. I'm trying to find out the exact date of death for Peter Lovell Johnson (CA bio) who CA claims died in 2017. It strikes me as odd that in 2017 his date of death wouldn't be recorded more accurately. I've searched high and low for his date of death and no luck. Nothing in any paper searches, no deceased estate notices on the Gazette. I traced him to Clare College at Cambridge, but they don't have an obituary for him. I'm beginning to wonder if CA has plucked his out of thin air! Any chance someone could put an extra pair of eyes on this and see if you have better luck than I did! Thanks :) StickyWicket (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph death notices have him dying on 11 July 2017. They're at announcements.telegraph.co.uk, and then there is a search function. Johnlp (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnlp: thanks for that, much appreciated. StickyWicket (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Super Over

Template:Super Over has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SocietyBox (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The English cricket season is nearly upon us!

With the 2019 season just around the corner (why start so early? *shrugs shoulders*) it'd be good to knock a few of the grounds missing picture as the season progresses. If you're near a missing ground, or might be passing by, and can take a picture of it, if you could put your username next to it that would be great!

Bedfordshire

• Bedford School Cricket Ground, Bedford

Berkshire

• Sonning Lane, Reading

Buckinghamshire

• Ascott Park, Wing
• Dinton Cricket Club Ground, Dinton
• London Road, High Wycombe
• Shardeloes Cricket Ground, Amersham

Cheshire

• Oxton Cricket Club Ground, Oxton
• Walton Lea Road, Warrington

Cornwall

• Roskear, Camborne
• Wheal Eliza, St Austell

Cumberland

• Ernest Pass Memorial Ground, Barrow-in-Furness
• Parkside Road, Kendal

Devon

• County Ground, Exeter (currently has a picture of a gate, not great!)
• Peverell Park, Plymouth
• Recreation Ground, Torquay

Dorset

• None to request

Gloucestershire

• Cirencester Park
• Dowty Arle Court, Cheltenham
• Greenbank Cricket Ground, Bristol
• Moreton-in-Marsh Cricket Club Ground
• Recreational Trust Ground, Lydney
• Spa Ground, Gloucester
• Swilgate, Tewkesbury - current picture is rather lousy
• The Victoria Ground, Cheltenham
• Wagon Works Ground, Gloucester

Hampshire

• Officers Club Services Ground, Aldershot. StickyWicket

Huntingdonshire

• The Parks, Godmanchester

Isle of Wight

• J Samuel White's Ground, Cowes. StickyWicket - tentatively, it's an expensive day trip from the mainland!
• Victoria Recreation Ground, Newport. StickyWicket - tentatively, it's an expensive day trip from the mainland!

Northumberland

• None to request

Shropshire

• Heath Road, Whitchurch
• London Road, Shrewsbury
• Orleton Park, Wellington

Somerset

• Johnson Park, Yeovil
• Westlands Sports Ground, Yeovil

Staffordshire

• Gorway Ground, Walsall
• Highfield, Leek
• Lichfield Road, Stone
• Longton Cricket Club Ground, Stoke-on-Trent
• Meir Heath Cricket Club, Meir Heath
• Oldfields Ground, Uttoxter
• Porthill Park, Wolstanton
• Tean Road Sports Ground, Cheadle
• Town Ground, Burton-upon-Trent
• Victora and Knypersley Social Welfare Centre, Knypersley
• Wolverhampton Cricket Club Ground, Wolverhampton

Sussex

• E. Tredcroft's Ground (outside Horsham) - perhaps a picture of the woodland which is now inside the boundary?
• Manor Sports Ground, Worthing. StickyWicket
• Petworth Park New Ground, Petworth. StickyWicket

Wiltshire

• Salisbury and South Wiltshire Sports Club, Salisbury - currently just a Geograph photo of the pavilion. Pavilion + outfield would be better.

StickyWicket (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Might be able to get a couple of those. And if there's anyone who is in or visiting Guernsey this summer, pics for King George V Sports Ground and College Field would be great too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: that's unfortunate timing, my cousin just dumped his girlfriend who lived in Guernsey! I could have asked him to get some pics! StickyWicket (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Cricketeurope

Looks like Cricketeurope has changed domain to www.cricketeurope.net from www.cricketeurope4.net, or at least closed their www.cricketeurope4.net domain, and the old domain is taken over by some advertising (the page I got was clearly fraudulent). Cricketeurope's scorecards are use as references for some pages like 2015 ICC Europe Division One, but just removing the "4" in the link give a 404 page. --Moedk (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Internet Archive's Wayback Machine has a copy of the scorecard from www.cricketeurope4.net, for the "2015 ICC Europe Division One" tournament, don't know if that is the case for all the links to www.cricketeurope4.net.--Moedk (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Mustafizur Rahman

A GA request template has been placed on Mustafizur Rahman. It needs some work in order to maintain its Good status. AIRcorn (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Surprised this is even rated as a GA. Looks pretty average, with a short lead and short sub-sections. StickyWicket (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Railway Union cricket players

Please see CfD here. Thanks. StickyWicket (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

East African and UAE cricketers

Fancy a challenge? As I've been going through and cleaning the remaining infobox parameter issues, lots of very old articles (2006ish) have surfaced that really aren't anywhere close to up to scratch. In particular, East African cricketers from the 1975 world cup and a number of Emirati ones - not from specific competitions, although the 1996 world cup might be a good starting point.

They could really use some care and attention, but there's no way I'll have the time to do anything on them. These lists are a tarting point perhaps:

and, quite possibly, many of the articles at:

• Category:United Arab Emirates One Day International cricketers (105)
• Category:Emirati cricketers (144)

So, if you fancy a proper challenge I reckon the 1975 template is the place to start... Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I picked one at random, Samuel Walusimbi. Maybe I got lucky, but there's plenty of stuff about him online. I'll look through some of the others as and when. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Good job. Don Pringle should be the easiest btw Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I might get round to doing a few in the coming weeks, my military cricketers project, while intersting, is becoming quite labouring, so perhaps these might be a welcome change. That UAE side had the nutty Sultan Zarawani who decided to face Allan Donald without a helmet and came away with a nasty headache. StickyWicket (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

County champions v MCC match

Is the current match first-class?

How/where could I tell this from Cricinfo's coverage, other than it's over 4 days? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It is. One clue is the bottom scorecard says First-class debut : JL Smith.The preview on Lord's website says it is too. Spike 'em (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Beat me to it. It is indeed first-class. – PeeJay 11:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. If there hadn't been a debutant, there's no way of telling from Cricinfo? That's poor. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the end-of-day reports both have the words "first-class" in them, but having the categorisation of the match on the scorecard would definitely make things easier. Spike 'em (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Category:Kolpak cricketers

Just bringing this category here for discussion. It was created in 2008, but I'm wondering if we really need it? We dont have Category:Overseas cricketers, so do we really need this one? StickyWicket (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it goes hand-in-hand with the main list. If there was a case that the category isn't defining to the player, then it could be deleted. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Move request

Please see RM on England cricket team. Spike 'em (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that there is a similar move proposal for the women's team at Talk:England women's cricket team#Requested move 27 March 2019. Richard3120 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Timothy Heath at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

And another cricketer I've just listed at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Algar. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

And one more (not started by me this time) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillingston (English cricketer). Don't know if this is the same as multiple one-name crickets of ye olde England who didn't play a FC match, despite the article's claim. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused about the new guidelines with regard to T20 matches. I'm assuming Algar is notable having appeared in this ITT match. If not, then if he were to "become" notable, CSD G4 is rendered null and void based on the text on WP:CSD itself which states that "..pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" do not come under CSD G4. Bobo. 09:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No, players in T20I matches for Associate teams who did not have T20I status before last years' changes by the ICC do not meet the notability requirements. Per WP:NCRIC point 4: "Have appeared as a player for an Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 in either a World T20 (men or women), Global Qualifier (men or women) or Regional Final (men only)". Any (associate) team prior that already had T20I status before then (UAE, Oman, etc), are unaffected. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I realized I had misread as soon as I wrote that, cheers. Life is confusing. Bobo. 16:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Haha, no worries - happens to the best of us. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Are all first class cricket players notable

regarding this Pratik Sinha (cricketer). Wanted to AfD but thought of discussing here first.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes, per WP:CRIN. Longer answer, with a bit more explination: The notability states "has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level". It then goes on to expand on this with "The "highest international or domestic level" qualification includes any player or umpire (both men and women) who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971; or in any senior domestic competition or match." This cricketer has played in eight first-class matches (to date) in the Ranji Trophy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Pratik Sinha itself should probably turn into a disambiguation page based on the fact that the name itself leads to a section on a page rather than a redirect. I'm never fond of these - especially not when it leads to a page section and not a page itself. Bobo. 08:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, especially if you can make a broad biography of the player. What do I mean? Well, we have plenty of articles on cricketers who made 20+ first-class appearances and beyond that, not much is known outside of their cricket. However, as examples Charles Orton and Julian Jefferson, who made 4 and 2 first-class appearances respectively, but have plenty of information that can be sourced to write about their lives outside of cricket. I think it's up to us, where a player doesn't have much of an article, to find out more about said player. Take R. N. Lee - literally only the initials of this player were known, but after some research his true identity was discovered. In short, yes all first-class cricketers, no matter how many matches played, are notable. The only time an article shouldn't be appropriate is if all we have is a surname and nothing more, even then research should be done to establish the missing details. StickyWicket (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I was about to DAB it, but before I do : both Cricinfo and cricket archive have Prateek rather than Pratik. Obviously a bit of transliteration is happening here, but is there any reason the article was created like this? Spike 'em (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Good spot on the name change. When the player first made his debut, his profile had the name of "Pratik Sinha". It's been updated since. I'll move this page accordingly. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I've done the DABbing now, and a brief timeline to hopefully explain what has happened here:

1. in October 2016 Lugnuts created the cricketer at Pratik Sinha
2. in March this year, this was moved to the Pratik Sinha (cricketer) to make way for an article on the anti-fake news person
3. this page was then AfDed
4. DBX recreated Pratik Sinha today as a redirect
5. I've just turned it into a DAB.

It is possible that the redirect is actually the PT for the name, in which case my last step should be undone, but a {{redirect}} hat-note to the cricketer is put on Altnews.in. Spike 'em (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I also just noticed that Prateek Sinha already redirects to now hosts the cricketer, so I don't know if this means the DAB should be left as is or turned back to a redirect with hat note? Spike 'em (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone for sharing your opinion. the notability question has been answered. Since there are only 2 subjects a DAB page is unnecessary per WP:2DABS. So I would suggest Spike 'em to self revert and restore the section redirect at Pratik Sinha and then place a hatnote on the article Prateek Sinha and alt news.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Something that I'd never read before

A random ramble. Just that I'd never read this fully before.

I can only think of one situation in which this has ever arisen before and it caused some significant frustration for me to try and bring the deleting admin around to it. Perhaps I'm stating something stupidly obvious. Let's say for example I were to write an article on Gaurav Chauhan (completely chose a name at random from a match in an U14s Indian competition, such that this cricketer is not likely to pass CRIN anytime soon), and the article were sent to AfD (rather than being speedy deleted). Were this cricketer to later make a first-class appearance, then what I find interesting is the clause in CSD G4 (deleted as a result of a previous discussion) which states that a subject of a Wikipedia article is not subject to CSD G4 if the subject now passes a subject-specific notability guideline.

I can imagine someone tagging an article with a speedy deletion template CSD G4, without being aware of a cricketer's new notability. Similarly, this could happen with a (theoretical) cricketer who was deleted last week, who became notable in the interim having made his debut first-class appearance within the last week.

And once again, please don't get me started on the direct contradiction on WP:GNG and WP:N in the claims as to whether an article has to pass SNG (hardline criteria, easy to evaluate) and GNG (woolly and meaningless - but, more to the point, should only be applied to something which does not directly conform to an SNG). Bobo. 01:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If the player now passes the notability criteria, then that should be made clear in the new version of the article and any admin worth their salt shouldn't delete it. And even if they do, they can see deleted versions of articles and so should be able to restore it pretty easily once the situation is explained. I don't think there's any issue here. – PeeJay 09:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I had just been thinking about this for a while. I just never saw that specific clause in the G4 criterion. Bobo. 13:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If anyone wants a task to be getting on with...

Cricketers who have made their debut in the Sri Lankan Premier League tournament this season:

It's worth waiting for verification to see if RADW Mayantha (1606103) and W. Mayantha (2274810) are the same person. Bobo. 15:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the list, Bobo. Most of the blue links are ones I've created who played in Tier A of the tournament. The remaining red-links have either made their debuts in Tier B of the tournament or have no DOB details (example), so I tend to avoid those. Tier B does have first-class status, but I tend to ignore that tournament, if I'm honest. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I would hope that DOB details will be added soon in some form or another. It depresses me that "Doesn't have a date of birth listed" is now apparently a cause for concern. (Don't worry, you're the last person I'd ever blame for that..!) Bobo. 16:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I only put them lower down on my to-do list as it sometimes means there's a duplicate profile, and the DOB can help verify which cricketer it is. Often with Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi cricketers, there are some initial errors on who actually played in what match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Flagicon in IPL infoboxes

This IPL fanboy editor User:A Simple Human keeps adding flags to IPL season articles' infoboxes, despite me pointing out to them MOS:INFOBOXFLAG several times. The players' nationality has no relevance to the team they are playing for in these domestic competitions. Can someone please tell them they are wrong as they removed my message from their talk page saying "until you create an account your opinion doesn't matter". Whether or not I want to create an account is my wish. I've been editing here longer than them without registering. Wikipedia:IPs are human too. 2402:3A80:D22:E3B6:EDA4:F0B9:67D3:2894 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise for hurting your feelings. I'm not just an IPL fanboy, I'm a cricket fanboy overall. I noticed you literally did nothing to the 2018 Indian Premier League article and other editors didn't take any step either. This made me piss off. The Bangladesh Premier League, Pakistan Super League and Caribbean Premier League seasonal articles had flagicons in the infobox and other editors didn't remove or neither did anyone inform me about it (Yes, I didn't know about MOS:INFOBOXFLAG until recently). Human (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You did not "hurt my feelings". Don't know about you but I have better things to do than take Wikipedia personally. As for other tournaments having these flags, well maybe we should remove them too. WP:OSE is not a good argument here. 2402:3A80:D22:E3B6:EDA4:F0B9:67D3:2894 (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Please do it on my behalf. Human (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the flags again. Spike 'em (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

IPL season articles

Can anyone explain to me why IPL season articles are constantly vandalized by IPs and nothing really happens? IPL 2010 to 2017. --Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess once a tournament is completed, very few editors are concerned about it, unless it's on their watchlist. If it continues, you can request for page protection. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If nobody cares why should I request a protection?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You seem to care, and nothing will be done unless someone notices it and then asks for something to be done. If you aren't that bothered then let it go, but you can't expect others to be bothered on your behalf if you are not prepared to take some basic steps to help alleviate the problem. Spike 'em (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll take them from my watch list and if the articles show the wrong champions or whatsoever, so what? Nobody really expects to read the truth in wikipedia.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You are free to do as much or as little as you want on WP, but it is a bit hypocritical if you expect others to clear up if you are not even willing to do the basics to raise it as an issue. Spike 'em (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Batting average

This article has been split, so any links are better going to Batting average (cricket), piped as appropriate. The cricketer infobox already does this, but there is a botreq in progress to change links in main part of articles. Spike 'em (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cr-IPL

Can someone please explain to me what the purpose of {{Cr-IPL}} is? The template doesn't seem to offer anything that couldn't be accomplished with normal wikilinks. – PeeJay 09:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I think they provide a shorthand way of linking, and the functionality to add the "H" could be useful. They are not too different to the {{cr}} links for countries, but without the flag. I just spotted that there is a major problem in that the {{Cr-IPL|delhi}} link has been re-coded to point to Delhi Capitals, so previous seasons (e.g. 2018 IPL) showed the wrong team name in the results section, so I've created an new name for the Capitals (unless someone can be bothered changing 12 years worth of previous results). Spike 'em (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Surely that last example is the best argument for getting rid of this template. The fix you have just had to implement would have been avoided if the articles simply linked to Delhi Daredevils. – PeeJay 10:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, considering the "H" is just text now, that can easily be added without the need to code the template. Templates are supposed to help editors reduce the need to use complicated code, not to replace simple wikilinks. – PeeJay 10:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I would definitely agree that misused templates are harder to deal with than links. I think the templates may have previously included a pseudo-flag as well as the team name but thankfully those were removed. I'm neutral on the use of the templates rather than being actively in favour of them. What is worse from my point of view is the use of a template for each match summary. I had to edit 15ish match templates and there is no indication in the page source of which template represents each match. Spike 'em (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the usage in the Result field. Could someone explain why {{Cr-IPL|kolk-r}} (17 characters) is preferable to what it transposes to: Kolkota (7). You've persuaded me : this is far too messy a solution to a non-existent problem. Spike 'em (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

TfD started. Please can someone link to it (too difficult for me to do on phone)? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The TfD is here. – PeeJay 11:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Now this TfD notice has made a mess on all IPL articles. Templates similar to these are used in other leagues too {{cr-BPL}}, {{cr-PSL}}, {{cr-CPL}} if you wish to nominate for deletion. 2402:3A80:D22:E3B6:EDA4:F0B9:67D3:2894 (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The mess was made by creating nonsense templates. If someone could all the BPL, PSL, and CPL template (and the BBL one too) to the TfD that would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A related question to see if there is a precedence: does anyone know of any other sports project where they list domestic results with icons / flags for the teams? Spike 'em (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Irish cricketers as "overseas players" in England

Should Irish cricketers be given "overseas" status in England? Although they aren't playing their cricket in Ireland, the likes of Stuart Poynter, Tim Murtagh and Paul Stirling aren't attached to Irish clubs back home. Joalhe1997 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

From the end of this season they will. Spike 'em (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

and "back home" for Tim Murtagh and Stuart Poynter is probably London. Murtagh played for Surrey, then Middlesex, for years before getting called up by Ireland. Spike 'em (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I hadn't been made aware about that news. And yes, maybe not so well phrased, especially knowing Murtagh is nicknamed the "Lambeth Lara". So for this season, should we remove the overseas status from the 2019 County Championship and 2019 Royal London One-Day Cup pages, as well as the team squads, given that these changes don't take effect until after this season finishes? Joalhe1997 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems sensible Joalhe1997. I'd imagine Murtagh being 38 next season might play a season or two in Ireland, not sure about Poynter though as he's only 28. Lorcan Tucker in the long-term will be the Irish first choice keeper, so Poynter may just stay in the north-west where he has a family and cease playing for Ireland in order to remain a local player. StickyWicket (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Nor had I until an hour ago! I was about to post that as EU citizens they were unaffected by overseas rules, but I checked the ECB regulations to make sure. Reading those, I came to the conclusion that the new regs were already in effect, it was just by additional googling that I found a couple of articles from 2017 which mentioned the Sept 19 cut-off. I'd never heard that nickname before (he's always been Dial M to me). And yes to the serious point about removing them all as overseas in the current seasonal articles. Spike 'em (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw this and it reminded me of this episode of Only Fools and Horses with Uncle Albert in court. Judge: "You spent the best part of the war stationed in a storage depot on the Isle of Wight! Hardly overseas!" Unlce Albert: "You wanna try walking it pal!" Hehe. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Nick Coles

Can anyone help with any information at all about this guy? I'm trying to de-orphan the article and I've been desperately searching for even an atom of biographical information about him but I've found diddly-squat. I don't have Cricket Archive so I can't look there, and everywhere else has nothing useful. Birthplace would be super so I could stick him in a "List of people from X" type article, but really anything that would justify me linking him from somewhere. I just want him out of the Feb 09 orphans category, he's the last "C" article as of right now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Birthplace added. Johnlp (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

From CricketArchive; he played in the Northamptonshire Premier League for Finedon Dolben from 2003 until 2016, and simultaneously (well, 1999 until 2007) for Warminster in the West of England Premier League lower divisions. Harrias ^talk 10:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that more information has been added about this individual in the eleven years since I originally wrote the article. We can remain hopeful that more can be found on individuals we know less about! Hurrah. Bobo. 10:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, gentlemen, it's appreciated! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Your best bet will be local newspapers. There's a passing reference in the Northamptonshire Chronicle, but it's just a name in a list. Possibly someone wrote something about the single match he played for Bedfordshire, but this is a very marginal case at best. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Marginal" how? CRIN is absolute, not namby-pamby "maybe based on our own point of view". This is the very opposite of "marginal". If you delete this guy based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT you may as well do the same for 50 percent of English-based List A cricketers. Bobo. 10:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that in closer to 35-40% there's probably a case that can be made, yes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This is going over old ground, but the FAQ on WP:NSPORTS says

The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Spike 'em (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The basic notability guidelines - not the subject-specific notability guidelines which people cannot decide day-by-day whether they are appropriate - contradict each other and render each other completely worthless. If you're saying we have to make case-by-case decisions on whether subject-specific criteria are relevant in any given situation, this renders the entire project pointless. Bobo. 13:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If our (recently expanded) subject-specific guidelines had been seen as unnecessarily broad, they would have been dealt with when they underwent their most recent expansion. If people weren't there at the time to have that conversation, more's the pity. Bobo. 13:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking through a list of my articles on someone else's Wikipedia page, it's interesting to see which articles have been PRODed without our knowledge or any form of justification other than "never heard of him", even though they do pass CRIN... again I ask, what's the point if people who know nothing about cricket are going to pick-and-choose at random? Bobo. 14:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

English List A competition

I wonder if any of you might be able to clear my confusion up here! I've heard that the 50-over List A competition will not be run from 2020. Is this the brainchild of the buffon Graves? StickyWicket (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd heard that it will run as a development competition at the same time as the Hundred (so none of the franchised players will take part). Whether that means it won't be List A I don't know, but it means that our ODI team (or those hoping to get into the team) will likely not play any domestic 50-overs games. Spike 'em (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. And to think Graves wants 6 more months. I won't be attending or acknowledging the existence of the 16.4/16.4! StickyWicket (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Please may I reinstate?

Please may I reinstate the article at Draft:Faghme Abrahams? This was one of the many articles written by 02blythed - which appears to have been deleted with no explanation - other than "let's draftspace everything by 02blythed without actually looking at it first". This article clearly passes CRIN and is sufficiently-sourced. I'm noticing more and more of these as time is going on which do not fall under CSD G4. To have 60 first-class appearances and to be in draftspace seems strange. Meanwhile, looking at the number of articles which meet CRIN which he has added which have been deleted apparently for "poor quality" (not a deletion criterion) - Haider Ali (Omani cricketer) is just one of many examples - it is sad that this has taken place. Anyone who can, please view 02blythed's deleted contributions to see what I mean. Bobo. 09:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no objections, but can you do some minimal sourcing & tidy-up before moving it back? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources are right there - they just happen to be labelled up as External links. We'd only be putting the same information in an entirely different section. As I always say with the articles I've created which haven't been touched in terms of prose for eight, nearly nine years, "that's the way it was done in those days". I'm fairly sure there are dozens of articles I've created which have maintained the same basic prose for nine years or more for which the same applies.

I still find it shameful - and I bet 02blythed still feels - that he was bullied away from the site when actually the work he was doing was absolutely fine. As I said to him at the time, if other people weren't prepared to help out with articles which they knew clearly met CRIN, that wasn't exactly his fault... Bobo. 12:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Without re-hashing old ground about this editor, they created lots of extra work for everyone, and didn't seem to improve their editing and article creation skills as time went by. This is how that article looked when it was created. Team and first-class not linked, next to no categories, and no inline refs. Rubbish like that only heads to AfD and wastes more and more time for all. Anyway, if you can do some slight improvements, then sure, move it back to mainspace. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Lawrence (cricketer)

Hi all. I wonder if anyone with any old newspaper access might be able to see if the above guy had an obituary published around March/April/May 1939 folling his death on 17 March 1939. I wonder if an obituary might also point toward which college he also attended at Cambridge. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

He went to Trinity Hall, per Birmingham Daily Post. All the British Army stuff confuses me, but the obituaries list him as being in the Coldstream Guards. If you haven't had one before, you can get a free trial to view three articles with the British Newspaper Archive. This from the Birmingham Mail also looks like it could be useful. Harrias ^talk 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias. He was in the Coldstream Guards, my mistake misreading the Gazette! I'll register with the British Newspaper Archive for these freebies! Should come in handy for the Cambridge ones, who for whatever reason, are much harder to find out their uni stuff than their Oxford contemporaries. StickyWicket (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Times obit was published 18 March - pg.18. There's a list of who was at his funeral in the 21 March edition on p.19. I get access using a public library card. I think many library services offer that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Blue Square Thing, might have to dig my library card out that I haven't used in years! StickyWicket (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Squads question

On 2019 Cricket World Cup squads, some of the Pakistan players are listed with their Pakistan Super League (i.e. T20) teams. Shouldn't they be listed with their List A teams instead, as the World Cup is a List A tournament? Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'd change it to that. StickyWicket (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

From my expeirence, Pakistan's List A programme is almost in the same style as their T20 one - IE players move from team to team on a very regular basis. It's pretty much a franchise approach, with player drafts and quotas used (X number of U19 players, X number of "local" players, etc). It can be very hard to say which players represent each team. The PCB has this list of the teams from their last major domestic List A tournament, if someone has the time to check and update. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding IPL Session Pages

Hello, I'm discuss about 7 Articles of IPL for Statistics Section Part.

• Chennai Super Kings in 2019#Statistics
• Delhi Capitals in 2019#Statistics
• Kings XI Punjab in 2019#Statistics
• Kolkata Knight Riders in 2019#Statistics
• Mumbai Indians in 2019#Statistics
• Rajasthan Royals in 2019#Statistics
• Royal Challengers Bangalore in 2019#Statistics

This Year I added 4 Extra Tables in Statistics section for all Above articles.The Name of Tables as below:

• Performance Summary in 2019
• ‎Opposition in 2019
• ‎Most Runs By Team
• ‎Wicketkeeper Dismissals

Are Above Tables are required for articles or Not??.(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC))

Since all the teams play only a single tournament, Performance Summary table is clearly unnecessary as there is already IPL standings section in the article. And season page also doesn't need the performance table based on the opposition. I feel that the sub-section on the highest totals scored was also unnecessary. You can always keep the individual statistics sub-sections like most runs, wickets and wicket-keeping performances. Sa Ga Vaj 05:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The first three of the tables you list above would be much better as prose. In fact, I think it would be entirely possible to argue that the tables are a simple NOTSTATS violation - there's no context whatsoever for them. I would also argue that the Player of the Match table is massively irrelevant. If something's notable (say one player is PotM 4 or 5 times) then write that in prose again. Otherwise it's just a table for the sake of being a table and adds nothing of value to the article. The highest total score is also really not needed - as above.

Personally I'm not really convinced about the wicket-keeper dismissal table either. It's not really telling me anything very much - runs and wickets is fine, but wicket-keeping is just a bit too niche really. If it stays then the last column needs to say Stumpings (linked) rather than Stumps done. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: hello , as you mentioned in 2nd paragraph about wicket keeping Dismissals.i will change last column, Anything you want to say about other tables?(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC))

I'm with the 2 above on the first 2 tables (ro be clear : remove them), they are just clearly restating information already on the page. I'm neutral on the highest scores, but would remove the colour. Slightly negative on wk stats and PotM tables. Spike 'em (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Performance Summary is already covered in League Table. I am okay to keep Wicketkeeper Dismissals along with Most runs by a player and Most Wickets . Also one suggestion Most Runs and Most Wickets - probably its good to restrict to Top 5 . -Lesenwriter (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Lesenwriter: ,Hello.So you agreed to keep 3 Tables(Most Runs,Most Wickets & Wicketkeeper Performance) ,So what is your openinon about Highest Totals Table of team,can we keep it or not(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC))

Since we are on the same topic, can you guys also comment your thoughts on the Sunrisers Hyderabad in 2019#Statistics section in which all the stats were placed in a single table. The same format is being used for all Deccan Chargers and Sunrisers Hyderabad season articles. I get regarding the table on the MoM and will remove it once I get the chance to add the prose for the season. Thanks. Sa Ga Vaj 17:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I would split this onto batting and bowling tables with a more limited selection of columns - if you click the source link you get the same information better presented - which raises the question of whether or not you need the table at all. Perhaps a prose summary with "hey, this guy scored the most runs, this guy had this amazing century and this guy took all the wickets - and hey, look here to get all the stats in a way that's much better than anything we could ever do on wikipedia".

If the table(s0 are going to be retained in some format, then get rid of the bolding (I have no idea what the hell it means) and for god's sake lose the bloody flags. Do people never learn that you don't use an image to represent content? Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: A season table always requires the individual stats. You can even say the same for the prose by saying that keep links for match reports and don't write everything. It would just be a bunch of links for the entire article. And regarding the flags, the same is followed in any football club season articles (and flags are needed since this is a franchise club but not a simple domestic club and this is present for a reason on to see how indian players are doing as this tournament was mainly placed to see improvement in the indian players). I can go away with the bolding of names since that is unnecessary. And it was pointed previously to me to keep all the stats in the same column and had kept it in that way since then. Same pattern was used in previous two GA rated articles and also placed one in peer review but none mentioned anything about that table. Still, looking to improve and will make it into two tables if many people disagree. Thanks for your comments. Sa Ga Vaj 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You already have the flag and the bolding in the squad table at the top of the same page - you really, really don't need them again. And using flags without text is utterly dreadful from a usability perspective - it means visually impaired users can't use get the information. The fact that someone has suggested that previous articles with this sort of bollocks in are GA status makes GA status even more of a joke than I already thought it was. This is a usability standard I would teach a 12 year old to deal with properly. The argument about checking how Indian players are doing is irrelevant - how can you know why people look at the pages? Just do away with the flags already.

In terms of "needing" stats - well, any table should have context. There's no context to these tables, so why are they there? You could get away without tables if you really wanted to. Or you add the context with a summary and then follow it with the table - it's not too hard to do. That would mean there'd be no arguement under CRICSTYLE for removing them. Of course, the fact that they are essentially copies from CricInfo still stands - which is a significant NOTSTATS issue. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I really don't get the constant obsession with flags on this website. Especially as we have a very clear manual of style. MOS:FLAG "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details.". Further, according to MOS:FLAGCRUFT; "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason". Applying these criteria to the Sunrisers Hyderabad in 2019 article suggests that the use of the flags (with the country name) is entirely appropriate in the squad table: a strong argument can be made that the nationality is a relevant piece of information there. Beyond that? I don't see the nationality being a relevant factor anywhere else. Remember that GA reviews are done by one person; just because another thing has passed GA with problems doesn't make it right. Harrias ^talk 11:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sagavaj: I think we should Split table in Sunrisers Hyderabad in 2019#Statistics into Most Runs & Most Wickets.we should make a Separate tables as @Blue Square Thing: already said it.(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC))

Nomination of Portal:Pakistan Super League for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Pakistan Super League is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pakistan Super League until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Seymour Nurse

Hi. I've nominated his article to appear on the front page, in the recent deaths section. IMO, the article looks in pretty good shape, but if anyone can make any further improvements, that would be great. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Necessary?

Any idea why we need 50+ template for this section? Why not use full scorecard there like other cricket tournament? Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Completely pointless, the point of a template is to be used multiple times, and none of these match scores cards will be. Can someone mass TfD them? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

But those templates are used in multiple articles, if you take a look at the ones in Category:2019 Indian Premier League. – PeeJay 19:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I worry about the overuse of templates on pages in general, and this is true here - the overhead on load time on mobile networks for example. It frustrates me that there's no way to easily edit them either - but then that means that it's harder to vandalise them as well, and frankly IPL etc... articles are prone to silliness at times.

I have more of an issue with there being 50+ match results on a page with them in full detail. If they were collapsed then I'd have less of an issue, but that's far too much data to have on a single page about a tournament such as this anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I do find it ironic that the main page is protected against vandalism, but the templates are not. These templates really should not exist for each match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It is impossible to tell which template you need to edit for a particular game, so they are not very helpful. They are all used on 3 articles (the main IPL page and each team's seasonal one), but I think this can also be done by labelling sections and transcluding directly from the main article (as has been suggested on WT:FOOTY for league tables). Spike 'em (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Women's T20 Challenge

Women's T20 Challenge redirects to 2018 Women's T20 Challenge, but is it worth creating a general article about both the 2018 and 2019 events? Like how we have one for Indian Premier League as well as the seasons of it. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Should definitely either merge the above and 2019 Women's T20 Challenge into Women's T20 Challenge, or make the later into a parent of the other two. Spike 'em (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

ICC Members

I'm working on some maps and could use some information.

• does anyone have a definitive list of part ICC members? Cuba seems to have been one and Switzerland was. Any others?
• what is a status of overseas territories etc...? So, in the Americas, do we need to recognise that French Guiana, Martinique etc... are technically part of France and so, presumably, an associate member?

I know the second question probably doesn't matter that much, but it's a geography question so I find it interesting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

In general, dependant territories aren't part of the governing body of their parent (for want of a better word) nation, and may even be ICC members in their own right (UK overseas territories and Hong Kong being the obvious examples) or part of other ICC members. Sint Maarten (just the Dutch part), the British Virgin Islands and US Virgin Islands are all covered by the WICB. However players from those dependent territories may be eligible to play for the national team of the parent nation depending on that nations nationality laws. For example, Daniel Doram and Hayden Walsh Jr. played for the Netherlands and USA respectively though were born in Sint Maarten and the US Virgin Islands respectively and remain eligible for the West Indies. Andrew nixon (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left them blank on the maps I've been creating because it seemed easiest to do it that way. There's now an up to date ICC world map as well as new regional ones. In terms of past members, Tonga seems to have been kicked out at some point, so I have Cuba, Switzerland and Tonga as the Triple Threat to the power of the ICC. Anyone know of any more?

Missed that bit - you're missing Brunei from that list. There's also East Africa, East & Central Africa and West Africa but they're obviously covered by their constituent parts. Andrew nixon (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew nixon: Was Brunei ever an ICC member? The page we have on Asia has it as an ACC member, but not an ICC member ever. I've marked it on the Asia map as a former ACC member, but left it from the ICC map. I\m checking a variety of stuff but it's not all that clear and I need to take a 14 year old to the first match of his season in ten minutes (if the rain holds...) If you, or anyone else, can be certain then I can add stuff easily enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Answered my own question - eventually found a news thing on the ICC site which mentions, in passing, that they were an affiliate until they were suspended. I'll update stuff at some point tomorrow.

The world map is the one below. If anyone can see anything else I missed... (it's a very large map once you get to the biggest version) Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Only thing I would like to see changed is the boarder between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. With the other Borders in the UK appearing in accordance of their team and not their status as a nation, it would make sense to connect the two areas in Ireland.--Maphry (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Maphry: Yes, I thought about that. It might be easy to do, it depends - I can't find a way to show the West Bank and Gaza strip on the map as not Israel either - and Taiwan is really difficult to edit because it's tied to China in some way. I'll try to take a look at Ireland at the weekend though. Thanks for reminding me about it - in this context it makes sense to do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Mashrafe Mortaza

I don't have much knowledge in free/non-free images, so I'd be grateful if someone could check the infobox image for Mashrafe Mortaza. It looks too good to be a free image, but the file info on commons suggests it is. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Not an expert either, but the watermark on the image is similar to the user uploading it, which suggests it is actually their image. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

They have a history of having files deleted for copyright violations and failing to respond to talk page messages, so difficult to tell. Spike 'em (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

There is a deletion discussion related to this project; {{Super Over}} has been nominated for deletion. Please voice your opinions on this template at the related TFD. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

On the same lines, there's also this discussion, which has been open since early April. If anyone else would like to comment, please do so. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Battersbee

Someone has added an AfD template to this article - in spite of the fact that it obviously meets CRIN. Can someone please help me adding inline citations - I believe that's the way these things are done these days. I'm amazed this article has lasted for so long without any extra content added! Bobo. 19:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

And now CA is being questioned as a secondary source. Again. Can someone with more knowledge than me please explain to this user how CA and CI are valid secondary sources? Bobo. 21:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

CA is run by some of those chaps from the ACS, that's my understanding. StickyWicket (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you please explain these on the AfD for those who are unsure of the validity and verifiability of this information. Cheers. Bobo. 22:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Somerset Women cricket team

• Somerset Women cricket team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP has extensively edited this article, and made no other edits. The immediate problem is that several template errors are visible ("Error: Need valid birth date: year, month, day"). I could easily fix them by removing the template for cases where no birth date is provided. However, what about the IP's other edits? BTW I know DoB is of interest in sports but does standard procedure involve posting such information based on an editor's say-so for people with no article? What should be done? Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to any article, not just one directly about the person in question, so unreferenced personal information should probably be removed. Spike 'em (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks. I fix a lot of drive-by errors in sports articles and it seems the norm is to assume good faith and believe the changes made by enthusiasts are valid. In this case I would guess the IP is connected with the team and went to a lot of trouble to update the article. Any thoughts on what the reaction should be? Adding a dozen citation needed tags would be useless so I guess I should just revert it all? Or, should I merely remove the broken bits? Does anyone know if there is there is a source where details for a team like this could be checked? Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

espncricinfo.com is the default source for cricket stats. There is also cricketarchive.com, but that is now a subscription site. I thought cricinfo would have a squad page for Somerset women, but I can't find one. here is a recent scorecard of one of their matches, you can click through to the individual player pages, though most of those have dates unknown for DoB. Spike 'em (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

CI is poor in general for women's cricket below international level. I was surprised that Somerset CCC's web pages don't seem to have anything on their women's team as well. Without that it might be very difficult to establish which players are actually part of a "squad" and which play the occasional match. Certainly the red links need to all go - they'll simply end up pointing at someone else with the same name at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It's all on Somerset Cricket Board's website; as I've now referenced. Harrias ^talk 06:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Table module

In an attempt to bring cricket tournaments into line with other sports, I've started on a {{#invoke:Sports table|function}} style for cricket tables. My first effort is for ODI tournaments and is currently at {{#invoke:Sandbox/Spikeem/CricketTable/ODI|function}}, with an example of its implementation at User:Spike 'em/sandbox/CrickTable, which is trying to match the format used in {{2019 Cricket World Cup points table}}. Does anyone have any suggestions for improvements, or other table styles to create? I was thinking of doing one for T20 tournaments, which may use Super Overs (do these get recorded separately?) and for County Championship (with the various bonus points / penalties). The template would still exist but the table within it would be replaced by the module call / data. Spike 'em (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Help me out by explaining the advantage? I'm sure there are lots, but I'm not sure I see them immediately.

Two other points:

• what's with the ugly VTE in the header row? I saw that somewhere else recently as well.
• will it allow teams to be bolded on their own pages? For example, as on Kent County Cricket Club in 2018?

Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I am new to using Modules myself, so hadn't thought through the first question completely myself! From what I can see: it allows the table formatting to be separated from the data and standardised. Using a module seems more flexible than using a template to do this as you can have any number of rows on your table, whereas use of a template either is constricted to a certain number at the start, or needs another set of subtemplates to build each row. There are other templates, such as {{football squad}} as used for cricket team navboxes, that exhibit this. IMO, the coding used on modules is also far easier to use for conditional statements (if...then...else) than is used in templates so is easier to maintain.

As to the specific questions:

what's with the ugly VTE in the header row?

In the current template it is caused by the {{navbox}} template embedded in the table heading, for the module based one I'm seeing if it is possible to turn it off.

will it allow teams to be bolded on their own pages?

Yes by use of |showteam=. On my test above, I've used |showteam=NZ to highlight New Zealand in the first table (which I've hived off onto it's own page to mimic how a template containing the table could work). I've also added an example using 4 rows from one of the tables on the page you mentioned as a further example, with Kent highlighted. I've not added a deductions column to the module, I can do so, but do you know what these are for (over rates?) Spike 'em (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply. I think we might need a tutorial or two at some point! Good to see what it can do though and if you're learning stuff from it then it's well worth trying stuff out from that pov. I still don't quite understand how the data gets separated out but I understand conceptually why that's a good thing.

I think we'd need the option to include deductions. Most commonly it would be over-rate, but it can be for her stuff: Durham were deducted a tonne of points a couple of seasons ago for their financial shenanigans and I think Leicestershire were dedicated points at some point for player behaviour. Of course, this wouldn't be a commonly used column in lots of cases: can we turn cols on and off as required? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added deductions to the ODI table and have added some to the County table in my sandbox (and added some hidden bonus points). It is possible to hide the column (but I may do some work to not include the bonus points and deductions in the points totals if the column is not shown). I still need to extend this to a County Championship table, which will need draws / batting points / bowling points. Spike 'em (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Do the infoboxes update automatically or is it done manually? I asked this before at Portal talk:Cricket but here may be a better place for getting an answer, I guess. --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It's all done manually for each player. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I see, thanks. --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Lugnuts Is it possible to automate the process of update of infoboxes with some type of bot? Maybe, that would require programming skills for which we can take help. Störm (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea if that is possible TBH. However, there are plenty of editors who focus their time on updating the infobox data as each match is concluded. Some focus on the current international players, some focus on (English) domestic players. Any high-profile player, of which I have countless hundreds on my watchlist, get some sort of update on a semi-regular basis. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

2003 Cricket World Cup group stage

Please help and improve this article. 87.140.111.165 (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It might be better to redirect it to the tournament article. It's a bit of a train wreck really. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

But take note that the article contains content which is not in the main article. How to expand the article by using cricinfo? Which runs and wickets have to be mentioned? Cricinfo always give four cricketers for runs and wickets, but wikipedia only two of them. E.g. compare 2003 Cricket World Cup group stage#9 February and Cricinfo. 87.140.111.165 (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Can anybody help? 80.153.196.239 (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

That's because there's a template that we use for matches which only has space for one (you can add two if you want, using a br tag. The content that isn't in the article is also content which is essentially a mirror of content that's on CI. Seriously, a redirect and addition of external links is the best option here: it's a train-wreck. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Using a break seems to be unusal, most of the match cards only shows one run for each team, e.g. Virender Sehwag 175 (140) and Tamim Iqbal 70 (86) for India vs Bangladesh here, but espncricinfo gives two for each team: V Sehwag and V Kohli for India, and Mahmudullah and Shakib Al Hasan for Bangladesh. That's for all the earlier tornaments in cricket. Now my question is, to expand 2003 Cricket World Cup group stage, which runs and wickets from espncricinfo's summary have to be shown and which not, to keep all the tournaments consistent? -- 87.140.111.165 (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems most common to use the highest score and the best figures (i.e. the most wickets for lowest runs - if no one takes any wickets just leave the field blank). I don't think consistency is necessarily much of an issue per se - if you can see a better way to do things and get agreement on it then it might be worth trying: you might end up with that article being the standard to work from. There are loads and loads of different formats being used all over the shop and no style guide, so if it's reasonable then it's worth trying - but maybe try it on a small scale in case it turns out not to be loved by others? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been bold and redirected. Anyone who wants to rewrite and cleanup the page, feel free to do so. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured article reassessment for Adam Gilchrist

I am concerned that the article Adam Gilchrist does not meet featured article status anymore, and would appreciate discussion and article repairs. Please see here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

More teams done!

Combined Services, British Army, Royal Air Force and the Free Foresters now have articles for all first-class players - please feel free to browse their categories and make any additions! StickyWicket (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion

See this move discussion. Thanks ~SS49~ {talk} 13:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

India–Pakistan cricket rivalry

Could someone take a look at India–Pakistan cricket rivalry and give an opinion with regards to the number of statistics in the article? I think I'd probably delete everything from the Championship titles section down - making sure that anything particularly notable were kept in prose - with the exception of the very last section about players who played for both teams. The sheer number of tables after that becomes overwhelming and it's difficult to see what might be kept and what is clearly statscruft.

I may be on the wrong track on this, but it does strike me as a touch of overkill. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It does seem too much and some of the info looks to be repeated. I notice a few lists feature the unexplained "S. No." column. Spike 'em (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

A quick look at the page and I'm convinced the page could without controversy be moved to India-Pakistan cricket rivalry statistics given it's current content. On a more serious tone, at first look, the only thing that I would definitively keep would be the "Summary of results". In short what you propose seems reasonable. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Results

A seperate section Titled as "Results" wherein as chart is inscribed showing the results of match fixtures so that we can have the better understanding and also easy for future references when we look back. Information on this can be easily retrieved from the reliable sources like Espncricinfo.com or cricbuzz.com . This will really help to have the better and quick understanding of how tournament has proceeded. This can be as follows. I will update this daily.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naimesdee (talk • contribs)

Match No.	Match Fixture	Date	Result	Points	Points Awarded to
1	England vs South Africa	May 30, Thu	England won by 104 runs	2	England
2	West Indies vs Pakistan	May 31, Fri	West Indies won by 7 wkts	2	West Indies
3	New Zealand vs Sri Lanka	Jun 01, Sat	New Zealand won by 10 wkts	2	New Zealand
4	Afghanistan vs Australia	Jun 01, Sat	Australia won by 7 wkts	2	Australia
5	South Africa vs Bangladesh	Jun 02, Sun	Bangladesh won by 21 runs	2	Bangladesh
6	England vs Pakistan	Jun 03, Mon	Pakistan won by 14 runs	2	Pakistan
7	Afghanistan vs Sri Lanka	Jun 04, Tue	Sri Lanka won by 34 runs - 41 overs match due to rain, DLS Target 187	2	Sri Lanka
8	South Africa vs India	Jun 05, Wed	India won by 6 wkts	2	India
9	Bangladesh vs New Zealand	Jun 05, Wed	New Zealand won by 2 wkts	2	New Zealand
10	Australia vs West Indies	Jun 06, Thu	Australia won by 15 runs	2	Australia
11	Pakistan vs Sri Lanka	Jun 07, Fri	Match abandoned without a ball bowled (no toss)	1&1	Pakistan & Sri Lanka each 1 Point
12	England vs Bangladesh	Jun 08, Sat	England won by 106 runs	2	England
13	Afghanistan vs New Zealand	Jun 08, Sat	New Zealand won by 7 wkts	2	New Zealand
14	India vs Australia	Jun 09, Sun	India won by 36 runs	2	India
15	South Africa vs West Indies	Jun 10, Mon	No result	1&1	South Africa & West Indies each 1 point
16	Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka	Jun 11, Tue	Match abandoned without toss due to rain	1&1	Bangladesh & Sri Lanka each 1 Point
17	Australia vs Pakistan	Jun 12, Wed	Australia won by 41 runs	2	Australia
18	India vs New Zealand	Jun 13, Thu	Match abandoned without toss (due to rain)	1&1	India & New Zealand each 1 Point
19	England vs West Indies	Jun 14, Fri	England won by 8 wkts	2	England
20	Sri Lanka vs Australia	Jun 15, Sat	Australia won by 87 runs	2	Australia
21	South Africa vs Afghanistan	Jun 15, Sat	South Africa won by 9 wkts (DLS method)	2	South Africa
22	India vs Pakistan	Jun 16, Sun	India won by 89 runs (DLS method)	2	India
23	West Indies vs Bangladesh	Jun 17, Mon	Bangladesh won by 7 wkts	2	Bangladesh
24	England vs Afghanistan	Jun 18, Tue	England won by 150 runs	2	England
25	New Zealand vs South Africa	Jun 19, Wed	New Zealand won by 4 wkts	2	New Zealand
26	Australia vs Bangladesh	Jun 20, Thu	Australia won by 48 runs	2	Australia
27	England vs Sri Lanka	Jun 21, Fri	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
28	India vs Afghanistan	Jun 22, Sat	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
29	West Indies vs New Zealand	Jun 22, Sat	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
30	Pakistan vs South Africa	Jun 23, Sun	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
31	Bangladesh vs Afghanistan	Jun 24, Mon	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
32	England vs Australia	Jun 25, Tue	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
33	New Zealand vs Pakistan	Jun 26, Wed	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
34	West Indies vs India	Jun 27, Thu	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
35	Sri Lanka vs South Africa	Jun 28, Fri	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
36	Pakistan vs Afghanistan	Jun 29, Sat	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
37	New Zealand vs Australia	Jun 29, Sat	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
38	England vs India	Jun 30, Sun	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
39	Sri Lanka vs West Indies	Jul 01, Mon	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
40	Bangladesh vs India	Jul 02, Tue	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
41	England vs New Zealand	Jul 03, Wed	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
42	Afghanistan vs West Indies	Jul 04, Thu	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
43	Pakistan vs Bangladesh	Jul 05, Fri	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
44	Sri Lanka vs India	Jul 06, Sat	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
45	Australia vs South Africa	Jul 06, Sat	Yet to be played	0	Yet to be played
46	TBC vs TBC 1st Semi-Final (1 v 4)	Jul 09, Tue	Yet to be played	Knock out	Knock out
47	TBC vs TBC 2nd Semi-Final (2 v 3)	Jul 11, Thu	Yet to be played	Knock out	Knock out
48	TBC vs TBC Final	Jul 14, Sun	Yet to be played	Knock out	Knock out

Is this not redundant from what is already available from the 2019 Cricket World Cup article (which is linked from the main page)??? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Naimesdee: This isn't needed in the article and your right IP'er, it's not redundant in the slighest as we already have it in the World Cup group stage and the main article. HawkAussie (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: You mean "it is redundant", right (the negative was just my way of framing that as something of a rhetorical question)? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that error in judgement, I meant that as well. HawkAussie (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIARY

From this section in What Wikipedia is not : Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. Lots of editors go around adding every single match or innings that an international player takes part in, even if their role in it is minor. Please bear this in mind, so that we have fewer sections that are just lists of On day month year he scored nn runs / took mm wickets against opponent and his team won / lost by x runs / wickets. Spike 'em (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Just referenced this section on the relevant user talk page after coming across this diff! Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Page move

Please see this discussion. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

AB de Villiers

Could someone do me a favour and look at the claim in the lead paragraph of AB de Villiers that "He is widely regarded as one the greatest batsman ever to have played the game". Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a raft of IP editors who keep adding this, but as a minimum the claim needs to be cited. I've removed it for now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd have no problems with calling him one of the best limited overs batsmen of the last 25 years - and I think there are sources to support that. Nut greatest of all time is a reach without very clear sourcing for it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It has been reinserted again. Is it just me or does it seem suspicious that a newly created (seemingly WP:SPA) account and an IP are doing very similar edits? Edit: reported at WP:3RRN for good measure 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

IP is (almost) definitely the same editor - thanks for reporting it; I didn't get around to it last time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks 107.109. I agree that the two editors are one and the same. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be at it again from a new IP; have reported it at WP:DRAMABOARD (though this should be relatively drama free)... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

"He has been described as "a cricketer with overflowing talent and the temperament to back it up" and as "one of South Africa's greats"." - even this referenced part of the lead is so cringe. StickyWicket (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

If you remove it (and move it to another section), I won't be the one complaining! 107.190.33.254 (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Records and acheivements

Under WP:CRIC#STYLE, there seems to be no specific guidelines regarding the Records and achievements section of BLPs. As a long time solution, prose over list would be much appropriate for most cases and the abolishment of WP:TRIVIA is necessary. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 08:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with prose over a list of "facts". For example, someone has made a right hash of this article... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree also with prose, although there is a place for lists - it might be helpful to be able to point to two or three good examples of where things are done well.

The Trivia section is very rarely done well and is almost certainly worth getting rid of. The guidance, such as it is, needs reworking to perhaps place more emphasis on how to structure an article - the point in the section on this page about not including every detail from ever match would also be worth including as guidance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This looks uglier. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Parbhu Nana

Hi. Following today's Cricinfo article, there's a note to say that Parbhu Nana, the oldest living World Cup cricketer died some years ago. If anyone has any further sources, that would be great. I've made a note in the article. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Google isn't helping me in this case. I guess folks frequently contributing to pages like Kenya national cricket team would be handful to gather intel. Maybe contacting the locals can find some hardcopies. I am eager to collaborate and negotiate if required. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Two month virtual editathon on Women in Sports

WikiProject Women in Red is devoting the next two months (July and August) to a virtual editathon on Women in Sports. Please take this opportunity to write more articles about women cricketers who lag far behind men on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Championship points deductions

Does anyone know why Notts and Hants have both been deducted a point? I'm sure there's an ECB press release somewhere, but I can't find them. I'm assuming over-rates? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

ECB screwing over Hampshire, their favourite pastime I'm afraid. StickyWicket (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Notts was for a slow over-rate against Somerset, see the match notes here, while Hants was also a slow over-rate, against Essex: here. Harrias ^talk 12:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Looked (almost) everywhere for those as well... Not sure how poor the over rate needs to be to have deductions in a match that only lasts two days mind you... Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. (¬_¬) Harrias ^talk 15:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Stumbled across this!

Hi all. Stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes if anyone fancies knocking some of these off, appears to have been pretty much forgotten over the years! Added to my to-do list! StickyWicket (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Loads either have inboxes or really don't need them by the way. A starting point would be to remove all the ones that clearly fall into either category. I'll start having a go at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Cricketers for deletion

Hi. I've bundled a group of non-notable cricketers for deletion. The discussion can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I've listed two more, for the same rationale. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Michael Gough (cricketer)

Hi. A couple of days ago, Michael Gough was involved in a DRS decision with Rohit Sharma given out. Unbelievably, some Indian fan-boys didn't like this (I know, shocking!), so took their frustration out on his article. Take a look at the edit history - somewhere in the region of ~150 edits/reverts in about one hour after this. Some editors think it's worth including this affront to Indian cricket in the article, but I don't think it is. There is a discussion on the talkpage for further input. Oh, and India went on to beat the West Indies by 125 runs... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it me or has the level of stupidity on articles gone up significantly over the last month or so? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding mention at the article, absolutely no (the "bad decision" has not been covered in any reputable sources; and a fan's opinion is even more unreliable than that of an average Wikipedian...). Regarding stupidity, I guess it's normal when there's a competition for tempers to get heated - don't know if there's anything we can do about it, though. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Football AfD stats

Hi. Although not related to this project, I found this quite interesting. One in six BLPs are footballers, with approx 1 in 59 BLPs being cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Death bowling

WP lacks an article on this important skill in the one-day game, and bowlers who excel at it. (I think I remember Mike Procter bowling 6 well-directed leg stump yorkers in the final over of some match in the 1970s.)

Closer (baseball) is a similar skill (and needs a similar mental set). Narky Blert (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

If there's enough to write about, then sure. Otherwise it might be worth just adding to the bowling (cricket) article if it can be expanded above the current one-line. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with User:Lugnuts here. the right thing to do will be to continue adding it to the main article until it is long enough per WP:SIZERULE for a WP:CFORK. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)