Portal talk:Cricket/Archive 3

New approach to the "cricket" page

This is a new experimental approach. On searching for "cricket" users will find a reader-friendly portal to cricket pages. Please leave the page like this for at least a fortnight, though do feel free to comment on the new approach (and to improve the presentation of the portal). Thanks, jguk 21:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to navigate to domestic cricket from the portal page, I think another box would remedy this. What thoughts?Smockdotcom 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Portalspace

This page survived VfD. The issues on the VfD were not really surrounding whether this page should exist, but rather whether it should exist in the normal articlespace or not. The flavour of the comments suggested that the page might benefit from being in a new Portalspace, with the page remaining here (ie at Portal:Cricket) until such a Portalspace was formally created. If you wish to contribute to the discussion on whether there should be a separate Portalspace, please go to Wikipedia:Portalspace. Kind regards, jguk 17:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

My changes of 9 July

I have made some changes as the portal is in namespace and is picked up by mirror sites. I have therefore got rid of all the links to Wikipediaspace. The categories are also not picked up by the mirrors, so I have relegated them and made them external links to WP (well - advertising doesn't hurt, does it!). I also think we should list all ODI status countries: we're in desperate need of something on Ireland! jguk 9 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

The Ashes 2005

Is there a page dedicated to covering the 2005 Ashes, much like the 2005 Tour de France is covered at 2005 Tour de France? Commander Keane 08:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep - in fact there are two. Australians in England in 2005, which covers all games the Australians play - i.e. including the one-day series, warm-up matches with county sides, and so forth, and The Ashes in England in 2005 which covers only the Test matches. There's not much in the latter article because the match isn't over yet Sam Vimes 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The Australians in England in 2005 article is too long (currently 113kB), especially since it goes into detail about the Tests. I'm writing a summary of the matches and propose that when it's finished, the expansive match reports are either moved or (if replicated in The Ashes in England in 2005) deleted. Paddyohale 17:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking. One thing to mention, it should be moved to Australian cricket team in England in 2005.. Oh, it's already there. Never mind. Sam Vimes 17:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Summary written, I propose that the detailed Test match reports be taken off that page as they are repeated elsewhere (but check first). I haven't seen the reports of the first class matches elsewhere, but they might not be anywhere else. I suggest it would be easier if I did that myself, but I won't be able to for a short while. Paddyohale 18:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

New Zealanders in Zimbabwe in 2005

I realise that the people who read this page are devotees of cricket rather than necessarily being interested in politics, but you are probably aware of the controversy around the New Zealand tour of Zimbabwe scheduled for next month. I've created a stub on the politics of the situation; would someone like to check what I've said for bias, and convert to whatever format is appropriate for a cricket match? Feel free to add more detail if it's warranted. I think we should cover both the politics of the situation and the cricket played (if it happens) in this article.-gadfium 05:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that we should cover the politics of it all. I note you're from New Zealand, and therefore probably have more heads up on what's happening in New Zealand than the rest of us. Please feel free to continue the article you've started and to encourage fellow Kiwis to contribute too. Kind regards, jguk 07:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks very good to me - and yes, with a tour such as this, the politics are certainly very appropriate to mention. It looks fairly NPOV too. Good work Sam Vimes 09:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Victory Tests

After reading about the series in the Herald Sun, I created the Victory Tests article for this often-overlooked series of matches. However, I was unable to find much information about the English side that played, so anyone who can contribute to the article would be most appreciated. plattopus^talk 10:48, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well - I don't proclaim myself to be an expert on the history of English cricket, but I've added a bit now with the help of some research. I'd appreciate it if someone with a better knowledge of cricket in the 40s and 50s read through, though. Oh, and we probably need some references - I've added a couple but it would be good if you could date the Herald Sun article. Thanks for the article, though Sam Vimes 13:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Featured lists

I see that List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers is now a featured list candidate. For the record, I have no problem with that and will support it, but just a thought: are we going to do ourselves any favours if we start nominating every List of (countryname) (Test/ODI/Twenty20) cricketers article? I sense that there may already be a bit of discontent from outside the cricket editing area that we are a bit over-exposed (refer: comment in DYK recently, cricket disambig debate). On the other hand perhaps we should promote ourselves in every way we can. I'm interested in what others think. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well - basically, it's going to take a lot of work to get all the other lists up to FLC criteria (since we need to remove all the redlinks). I have started on List of Sri Lankan Test cricketers - and done seven in a week. So it's going to take a long time, and hopefully, by the time they're finished, this "cricket-swamping" has been forgotten. I find the DYK situation interesting, though - no one nominated more than one article, yet there were so many of us that in the end we got everything through - and I don't really see the logic in discouraging people from nominating in a particular topic. If there's too many, go find something else Sam Vimes 07:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I nominated the Hong Kong one as it has no redlinks, and I thought it would be useful to see how it goes. The Asian XI and World XI ODI pages also have no redlinks, so if the HK one goes well, I'll nominate them soon too. However, the other lists are a long way off having no redlinks - whilst I hope they will all become blue, the time it takes to achieve that will mean WP:Cricket is not bombarding WP:FLC, jguk 14:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

ICC Elite umpire panel

This article, which is a bit unglamorous but rather important, could use a bit of cleanup from one of the more knowledgeable members. (It didn't even have a category link to anywhere until 10 mins ago!) --Peripatetic 16:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Ashes burnt at the oval??

The Ashes trophy was named "after" the ashes, and the stumps or bail were burnt in Australia, not The Oval. This is all urban myth. http://www.abcofcricket.com/A_Legend_Is_Born/a_legend_is_born.htm has a much more accurate take on the history of the ashes urn (it isn't a trophy, either)

--128.243.21.225 10:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm, fair point. Thanks for pointing out that inconsistency (because the article itself actually is consistent with the link you just gave, but the lead-in isn't). I'll fix it at some point. Sam Vimes 07:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Portal template

I think there used to be (and hopefully still exists) a template that you can put on a cricket page to link to the cricket portal. Where is it? --Commander Keane 15:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Not a template per se - just add '''For more coverage of the sport, see: [[Portal:Cricket]]''' to the top of the page. Sam Vimes 07:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• The thing I was looking for turned out to be {{portal}}. I have placed it on the Cricket article. Cheers anyway. --Commander Keane 10:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is also {{portalpar|Cricket}}, which I have put on some cricket pages, do you think it is a good subsitute for '''For more coverage of the sport, see: [[Portal:Cricket]]'''? --Commander Keane 10:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Editing difficulties

Portal:Cricket is the most difficult aticle to edit on Wikiedia that I have come across. Contributing to this problem are three things:

1. &nbsp is used to stop text wrapping, which really isn't that necessary
2. – is used for dashes, which can be replaced with the symbol at the bottom of the editing box
3. The categories section uses external links rather than internal ones

Does anyone have a problem with me simplfiyng the article with respect to the above three points? --Commander Keane 13:05, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

1.   might well be necessary. I believe I put it in there when I initially made the design for the portal, but don't hold me to that. It may have something to do with different resolution screens, but by all means test it.
2. That's from pre-MW1.5. Change it if you want, but maybe you could make sure that all future changes also are ndashes rather than hyphens, which is how they appear in the edit box, at least by default.
3. No, don't change these. This is to avoid websites mirroring WP using categorie that don't actually exist on their sites. Most WP mirrors ignore categories.

On a more general how-to-use-the-portal note, I guess modularising the various boxes might not be a bad idea. This is the way most portals do it, although I am very specifically opposed to having ugly "edit" links all over the place, especially at the top. If they have to go in, I suggest putting them at the bottom of each box. [[smoddy]] 13:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about this external links to internal resources thing - is there a discussion somewhere explaining the reasoning in more detail? In particular, it seems to me that if a mirror wants to copy portals, it's up to them to make them into something useful - either manually or by changing their import tool. After all, we could make all internal links into external ones, in case somebody wants to only mirror one page, but that would be silly; instead, we try to avoid self-reference so that it doesn't matter if a page is taken out of context - yet these links seem to increase self-reference, by referring explicitly to this website rather than to another part of whatever resource the page is being viewed on. - IMSoP 15:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I transformed the category links: first and forehand because they are semantically wrong: to reference categories, we should use category links (and the [[:Category:...]] are there do just that, and nothing else). Secondly it's easier for readers and reusers of all kinds. — Sverdrup 15:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I put in #  for most of the links today - it's to prevent links going across two rows, or that a row starts with a dash, which IMO looks ugly. I wouldn't object greatly if it was removed, but I think that formatting makes it reasonably consistent on all resolutions. Sam Vimes 17:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I knew it was Sam somebody! [[smoddy]] 17:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care that it's difficult to edit - indeed, I think it's better this way. The portal is meant as a guide for readers - it is a central repository put together by the most experienced WikiProject Cricket members. Comments from non-WikiProject Cricket members on how it can be improved are always going to be welcome; edits from those unfamiliar with Wikipedia or with what is on offer about cricket on Wikipedia are always likely to require amendment, jguk 19:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

While I sort of understand your reasoning, I think it is flawed because you could say the same about the whole of Wikipedia - it's intended as an encyclopedia, for readers, written collaboratively to high standards. But since we want input from as many people as possible, we use wiki technology to make it easy for people to contribute, rather than making them ask us to change it for them. I know it's not how you meant it, but your comment almost sounds like snobbery, or a kind of "this is my page, get your own"... - IMSoP 14:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I ran User:Curpsbot-unicodify over this portal page to convert – to literal ndash. By default this bot does not convert ndash or mdash, but I ran it with the flag to do so set. As has been mentioned, the ndash looks exactly like a hyphen in the browser edit window because the edit window uses fixed-width fonts. At the expense of this small bit of confusion, however, the end result is that the edit window may be somewhat more readable and editable. -- Curps 22:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the main problem was with the nbsp's, though - I can understand it, but at the same time, it's really helpful for making the page look neat on different resolutions. Sam Vimes 22:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

To enter a literal "ndash" into the edit window, see the small-print "Insert:" section below the edit window. The ndash is next to the (longer) mdash, and should not be confused with "minus sign", which is next to ± -- Curps 22:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

If –es are a problem, how about · ("·" or "·") or • ("•" or "•") or pipe ("|") (the last is already used in some places on this page; the first is used for the lists of other langauges on the main page and in WP:FA, for example). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

On format, there is a new "box" style for portals which simplifies the source greatly - see the source for Portal:Astronomy. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I find the box method more messy and harder to edit. The current style (minus the nbsp's) would be good. On the ndashes, probably the "|" is easiest to implement, and it's my choice. --Commander Keane 14:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we need the  s, but I've converted to dots. What do people think? Changing the dots to pipes should be easy with a "find and replace" word processor (given the number of mark-up pipes, the opposite may not be so easy). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed all the &nbsps now - the result can be seen in User:Sam_Vimes/Sandbox. I see your point, they're not really that necessary. Sam Vimes 08:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I greatly approve of the version at Sam's sandbox. How do you insert the dots? --Commander Keane 09:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I approve too (staring a line with a "·" is less jarring than a "–". To insert a dot, you may have the character menu below your edit window: · ("·") should be one of those. Alternatively, you can use · or copy one of them as displayed (here is another one for free: "·" ) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

No news section?

News section is missing :) --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 02:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

We don't need one - see cricinfo for news. The portal's designed so that it needs little updating, a news section would make it higher maintenance for no real value, jguk 05:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we need Current sports events? I am not demanding a news section, just offering my help if anyone else is interested in starting one. I think it will be nice to have one as it will tell people who want to update cricket-related articles possible places to do it. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 14:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, we could include a link to current sports events, jguk 18:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Intro section

The introductory section of the Portal doesn't tell me anything essential about cricket. Someone who doesn't know what cricket is (read:me) won't find that helpful at all.--Fito 22:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

You mean the "Cricket is a team game..." section? True - it doesn't really explain that it's a bat and ball sport, which should be the most important thing to mention. Sam Vimes 22:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It was not until I saw the images on Cricket that I knew what the game was about. I know this is not exactly the place to discuss this but the introduction of the Cricket article may "confuse those not familiar with the sport" too.--Fito 23:04, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have tweaked a little, adding an extra couple of sentences. Query whether we need the long list of Commonwealth countries that play cricket... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Television note

Hello cricket fans. I don't know much about cricket myself, but I am a frequent contributor to Wikipedia's television pages. I was just adding the following note to the 1938 in television article:

• June 24 - Test Match Cricket is broadcast for the first time by the BBC, with coverage of the second test of The Ashes series between England and Australia, live from Lord's Cricket Ground.

...when it occurred to me that perhaps it might be worthwhile adding it to a relevant cricketing article too. However, there doesn't seem to be an article on this particular test series yet, so I was wondering if anyone thought there was a relevant cricketing article it could go in, if it's not already covered? Angmering 20:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

History of cricket is one candidate - or Timeline of cricket. That's the ones I come up with off the top of my head Sam Vimes 20:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks – I've now added it to the timeline page. Angmering 10:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

TV coverage?

Maybe there should be some info on different services offering TV coverage of cricket? Particularly internet services that offer live cricket to people in places where cricket is not covered. One such site is willow.tv, who offer the same matches as directv's new "cricketticket" pay-per-view service for US satellite TV. However, they don't have a very complete slate of matches. This is of interest to me because I'm a cricket fan living in the US, where cricket is almost completely unknown. If anyone knows of any other internet services that offer live cricket, it would be of great help to me and lots of other devout cricket fans who live in non-cricket playing countries. rvinall 16:03, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Cricket in Australia

The Sport in Australia article is the current Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight - just wondering if anyone here would be interested in adding to the Cricket section? thanks --- Astrokey44 04:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Who was a veterinarian and also a cricket captain of a country?

Currently on the reference desk:

"Who was a veterinarian and also a cricket captain of a country".

--Commander Keane 16:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Cricket photos

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/hamedog I am going to SA vs Australia at the WACA this Friday and will be taking my camera. Are any photos required. Reply either here, thru my talk page or the link above. Hamedog 04:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

current matches section

Could there be a section here for matches being played currently? For intstance it would link to South African cricket team in Australia in 2005-06 at the moment Cfitzart 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Would be pretty high maintenance, though, and would change rather often. I'm content with the latest two seasons displaying here. Sam Vimes 10:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

National versus International

Consider {{National cricket teams}} and Category:National cricket teams. Should these be {{International cricket teams}} and Category:International cricket teams respectively?--Commander Keane 19:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought the word for a team representing a country was "national team"? It's certainly the way other sports use it (Category:National rugby union teams and Category:National football (soccer) teams). What would be the argument for renaming? Sam Vimes 10:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No reason to change, I just thought it sounded strange. In retrospect it seems fine, I was just confused between National and International competition.--Commander Keane 10:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of "jaffa"

The Beeb is looking for a recorded use of the term "jaffa" prior to 1993. Go here if you think you can help: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/wordhunt/word_appeal.shtml#jaffa

Cairns retirement

I have suggested on the ITN Candidates page - Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates that Chris Cairns final game should be included in the ITN section. Please comment. --Hamedog^Talk|@ 14:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

News Section

I think that there should be a news section like most other portals. There is a recent fixtures list, but I think a specific news thing is necessary. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, as long as we make sure it doesn't get stale. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to update in on weekdays, as I have started doing to the Australia portal, but I don't know how to do the design coding, so I'd like someone more experienced to lay it out to begin with. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cricket Userboxes

I know this isn't directly related to the portals, but just wanted to tell you that I've brought two of my projects together to create Cricket Related Userboxes, you can get them on your userpage by copying the following:

• {{User_Cricket_Manager}}
• {{User_Support_2020_No}}
• {{User_Support_2020}}
• {{User_ICC_over_BCCI}}
• {{User_BCCI_over_ICC}}

Was wondering on your comments and whether you had any wishes for new userboxes...Nobleeagle 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, but I'd say the last four of those falls under "potentially divisive" userboxes, and would rather those were deleted - there's no need for them while we write an encyclopedia. The first may have a point, however, and is at least harmless. Sam Vimes 17:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the debate on userboxes is still going, but I'm on the side that says user pages simply need to show the beliefs and ideologies of the users. As userpages are not meant to be encyclopaedic. I wouldn't say the Twenty20 boxes are harmful, people have differing views on Twenty20 cricket that are just like the fact people have differring views on Astrology (and we have userboxes on astrology and whether we believe in it). Perhaps the ICC/BCCI one is a bit too political though...Thanks anyway. Nobleeagle 04:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

{{User cricket}}.--Commander Keane 04:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And all the cricket team userboxes are available too if you want to have a look at them... Nobleeagle 06:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to portal

Some pages about cricket have a reference to this portal. Is there any convention of which ones direct to the portal? Only the detailed bios like Sachin Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting? or any and all?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

update

I've added 2005-06 Australian cricket season to Wikipedia's list of articles needing an update. There is nothing on that page covering Pura Cup and ING Cup cricket after January. QazPlm 06:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Cricketer Of The Day"

(Mentioned on the talk page discussing should this be deleted or not - Here)

Someone was saying that this portal has no "Picture Of The Day" feature. As cricket isn't really about that (what would you do - have pictures of grounds or something?), why not have "Cricketer Of The Day" for weekdays and something else (like featured grounds or famous matches) at weekends? It would also be an incentive for people to improve these articles. Paddyohale 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Red links

Please ensure that there are no red links in this portal, as they are contrary to the standards. Theremoval attempt has failed regardless.--cj | talk 07:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

New look for the Portal

I've been thinking for some time that the portal needs a new look. The idea of a general list of showcase articles was okay while the project was developing but now we really need to split out the categories it contained into separate boxes: venues, players, glossary, tournaments and history. This provides a more itemised and readable view for the newcomer.

I've also changed the list of players to provide a historical balance. As nearly always happens with lists like this, it was overburdened with current and recent players, including a couple of the predictable "personalities".

I've done enough with it for the moment but I think some of the recent event boxes need looking at also as there is too much content in them and there are hints of duplication. Again, it is about keeping a historical balance.--Jack 19:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely an improvement. Well done. --GeorgeWilliams 17:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cricket Categories

This has become something like Topsy that has "just growed".

It has been evident to me for some time that there is no structure to the categories; that there are stray articles all over the place; that categories that were designed for generic items and as "holding categories" for relevant sub-categories are simply being used as additional bases for specific articles; and that what we have here is another fine mess.

What makes it worse is that I have been trying to get other cricket people interested in using WP for cricket reference and their feedback has been critical to say the least.

We MUST have a top-down structure to categories and we must stop piling things ad hoc into useless lists. If we have a structured categorisation, the lists will be redundant (they are anyway) and readers will easily be able to navigate.

I have identified 28 categories under Cricket and there should only be 10! As a rule of thumb, I would say that the number of sub-cats in one category should be a cricket team (plus perhaps an umpire) and that an XI (or a dozen) is the limit.

Here are my proposed level 2 categories under the level 1 Cricket "root":

• Cricket by country (1) – each country has own cat at level 3 (status quo except that level 3 is for holding cats only)
• Cricket culture (2) – one-off to capture the miscellany, the peripherals, the trivials, the wider picture, etc.
• Forms of cricket (3) – first-class, Test, local clubs, under-19, etc. – histories of each to be in sub-cats
• Cricket images (4) – repository to be stored directly under root for reference purpose
• Cricket (in the) media (5) – anything re books, broadcasting, journalism, film, computers, etc. Currently renaming this category.
• Cricket organisation and governance (6) – admin, scoring, venues, comps, equipment, awards, Laws, records, stats, etc.
• Cricket people (7) – players, umpires, writers, administrators, etc – every article to be re an individual
• Cricket skills (8) – batting, bowling, fielding, keeping, captaincy, umpiring – onfield activities only
• Cricket stubs (9) – repository to be stored directly under root for reference purpose
• Cricket terminology (10) – repository to be stored directly under root for reference purpose

Apart from the two in bold, all the above are existing categories. Apart from the generic article Cricket, the portal and the WikiProject, there should be no articles or pages held under the root category.

Level 3 should be the main sub-categories. For example, under skills at level 2 the level 3 cats would be batting, bowling, umpiring, etc. as above. Generally, there should be no pages at level 2 except for the standalone categories like culture, images and stubs. A couple of the level 2 cats like country and people should not have pages on level 3 either as level 3 is where they split up into countries and occupations respectively.

The worst categories of all are history, teams and Tests which frankly need completely restructuring or demolishing. They are a disgrace and I am especially embarrassed by history as I started it and put most of the original effort into it. History is carrying surplus articles that should be reassigned or else have sufficient specific categories already and should not be in a generic category like history. History had eight sub-cats and six of them were cross-cats that were already adequately located elsewhere, especially under the country or competition headings. The other two history cats were small specific items that should both be elsewhere: Olympics under competitions and Years under first-class cricket.

I have already started sorting out much of this mess but I will not change the root category's sub-cats until members have had chance to read this and respond to it. Pending any feedback, I will change the root cat on Sat 1 July. --Jack 05:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket and Category talk:Cricket. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Afd on List of cricketers

I have put up List of cricketers for discussion under AfD. Thought it would be relevant to notify the portal members. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Iconic cricketers

From a recent edit of the Portal, adding Wasim Akram to the list of "Iconic cricketers" is the edit comment: "Anyone who thinks Wasim Akram is not a iconic cricketer needs help." While arguably true, I could also name Ian Botham, Dennis Lillee, Viv Richards, Arjuna Ranatunga, Brian Lara, Bert Sutcliffe, Kapil Dev, Greg Chappell, ... We have to draw a line somewhere, or people will always be arguing to include their favourite. Perhaps if we change the section title to "Selected cricketers"? -dmmaus 23:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How were they selected? --Dweller 11:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They were reasonably good articles a year or so ago, I think.

I've now been reverted once, so I think we ought to make some systematic criteria:

• 25 players
• At least 1 player from each of the top eight nations
• No more than 5 players from any nation
• At least 1 player from each decade of Test cricket
• 1 player from before Test cricket began
• At least 1 wicket-keeper
• At least 2 allrounders
• At least 3 spin bowlers
• At least 3 opening batsmen
• At least 4 seam bowlers

It's not terribly important, but as dmmaus said this section is going to keep getting reverted. Sam Vimes | Address me 11:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Current/Most recent matches"

These are sadly out of date. Can anyone edit the Portal page? --Dweller 11:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Events in 2005-06?"

There is a section on the main page for "Events in 2005"; however that primarily refers to the English domestic season. For the preceding Australian domestic season, can we create a category for "Events in 2005-6", which will cover the following:

• South Africa cricket team in Australia 2005-6
• West Indies cricket team in Australia 2005-6
• VB Series 2005-06 (one already exists and is excellent)
• Australian Cricket Domestic Season 2005-6

Currently those pieces of info can only be found on Australian_cricket_team#vs_West_Indies, which is nowhere near the details achieved by editors here (eg. Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006). If such a category exists, we can co-ordinate events during teh Australian season far better.--Alexio 12:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

They already exist, but have different names to the ones you thought of:

South African cricket team in Australia in 2005-06

West Indian cricket team in Australia in 2005-06

2005-06 Australian cricket season

There is no category (there should perhaps be one), though there is a template:

Sam Vimes | Address me 12:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Sam, I never managed to find them. But doens't that highlight the problem? If you don't know the precise names (I was only missing an "n" at the end of "South Africa"), there's no way of finding those articles. If a season list is available on Portal:Cricket, it'd make life for the casual Wiki observer far easier.--Alexio 12:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's true, the article names are woefully complicated, and creating redirects for all possible permutations would be a mare. As it's so few events that currently have articles (the only other domestic 2005-06 season we have is 2005-06 West Indian cricket season) I think an "events in 2005 and 2005-06" section may be justified (to include England as well and saving some space?) Sam Vimes | Address me 12:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section on 2005–06 and 2006 domestic seasons now. It had the added advantage of balancing the columns - how do you think that looks? Sam Vimes | Address me 12:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Loved your work Sam. We can leave the 2006 season as-is, since it's convention for cricket seasons to be broken down to 2005, 2005-6, 2006 and so on. 2004, 2005, 2006 etc usually coincides with the English domestic season, whereas 2004-5, 2005-6 etc coincide with the Australian (and probably West Indian) season.--Alexio 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation sought: was Arthur Courcy the umbrella-handle muncher???

In the "History of the Test cricket (up to 1883)", Jguk wrote: "Epsom stockbroker called Arthur Courcy, is said to have bitten through his brother-in-law's umbrella handle." I've heard about a spectator biting through his umbrella handle, but I have never heard the name of Arthur Courcy mentioned in this regard, and I certainly wasn't aware of it being his brother-in-law's umbrella. Would Jguk care to provide and quote his sources? Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 08:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

As I've cruised through several articles, I've noticed the conflict of scoring notation being used, with the Australian method (wickets/runs) and the "everyone else" method (runs/wickets) appearing.

Despite being Australian myself, I think we should use the "Everyone else" method, as it is (as far as I know) used by everyone except Australians.

I might be reinventing the wheel, so if there is a page for formatting guidelines somewhere, please let me know. Otherwise, we need to create one, so that all aspects of scoring (team totals, bowling figures, not-out designations, etc) are consistent across the 'pedia. Manning 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A very belated reply: There is, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket under "Cricket article style guide". —Moondyne 03:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Batting and Bowling Strike Rate Data missing in Infobox

Batting and Bowling Strike Rate Data is missing from the crickets page in their corresponding Infobox can this data be made available on all the cricketers and be also made a guideline for future pages. Vjdchauhan 14:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC).