Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

→

Michael Henderson (writer)

This article had caught media attention for being blatantly libellous. I've stubbed it. Since it is marked as within the field of this project, I wondered if some very careful writers might like to re-write, being completely fair to the subject and strictly applying WP:BLP.--Doc^g 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting comments

Okay, so since over half the time recommended time period has passed and only 1 person has commented, could some people take a look over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches and give me some comments? I'm not after your support -- although it is appreciated -- it's simply the lack of response is a bit frustrating; having it fail due to a lack of response and all that. (I'm fairly sure this doesn't count as canvassing, and I'm certainly not meaning it to be. Just after any comments or suggestions due to a lack of attention given by other editors.) Any responses much appreciated. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 03:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cricket (game) v Cricket (insect)

It has been a bit of time since the last debate came up :-/ We now have some statistics on how the two articles compare - according to http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Cricket the cricket page was viewed 123326 times in February 2008. If these viewers had come to this page looking for the insect would have visited Cricket (insect) too, but it turns out that it got only 17407 views. So the game gets something like six times as many hits as the insect. Tintin 06:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that is that it cuts the other way and we'll get a few attempted O'Reilly moves soon. The pundit is about 45 times for popular than the great Tiger....Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ernie Toshack

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ernie_Toshack is at FAC. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Slindon in DYK

Hello. It may interest cricket project members to know that the famous Slindon Cricket Club is mentioned in Did You Know? for 16 March on the Wikipedia main page.

On 16 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Slindon Cricket Club, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Best wishes. --Jim Hardie (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bill Brown (cricketer) has died

Dreadful shame. Cricinfo's posted several articles about him. I'll add them to the article talk page for reference when his article's expanded. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Very sad. I understood he was Australia's oldest surviving Test cricketer. Who takes that mantle now? And who is the world's oldest? This is a bit dated. —Moondyne click! 23:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Eric Tindill is the world record holder apparently. —Moondyne click! 23:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a list here. Ron Hamence is the oldest Australian now. Johnlp (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Very sad. A great cricketer and a great gentleman. Also, his grandson went on Wikipedia and announced the death before it was on the news. It's a shame Bill Brown wasn't inducted into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame before he died. There are only 4 Invincibles now left - Morris, Harvey, Loxton and Hamence. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a reference for the news being announced on Wikipedia first? I wonder if we could get it into the WP:SIGNPOST. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/202.172.120.241 is the reference. Admittedly that is hardly RS, but the IP posted it into the article before it was on Cricinfo or the ABC. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New List of oldest Test cricketers is up. I freely admit there's some original research, in the last table particularly. References and expansion appreciated. —Moondyne click! 03:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Long Room

I was a bit embarrassed at how poor this article was, so have given it an upgrade. It strikes me that several "factoids" in it could be DYK material, but am unfamiliar with the process - anyone want to help out? Always nice to get a cricket mention on the main page, if for no other reason than to see the howls of protests it engenders. NB Assistance with Cats for the article would be good, too. --Dweller (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Not sure if the Melbourne version deserves a mention somewhere. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. I think it would be better as a section of the Lord's article though, with Long Room redirecting to that section. JH (talk page) 19:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that. But the Long Room has quite a lot of stand-alone notability. If Lord's were a properly developed article, I'd have a {{main}} tag in the Long Room section. (NB I wouldn't be arguing this for, say, the Q Stand) --Dweller (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've now done this... the whole Lord's article needs a bit of a shake-up; there's the makings of a pretty good article there, but it's just got a bit of a cobbled-together feel. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ICC Player Rankings of dubious value?

With the usage of the ICC computer player rankings a lot of bios and in some FA/GA player bios (especially in retospectively comparing articles), is it only me who thinks that the rankings aren't a good measure of a player's achievements and current form? From my cruising around the site and looking at player rankings, I do feel that the algorithm doesn't sufficiently scale the performances of the players against weaker teams and gives cheap and excessive points for performance against weak teams. For example I looked up the career Test bowling performance of Irfan Pathan. In late 2004, India played two Tests against Bangladesh, then in early 2005, 3 against Pak and then in Sept 2005, another 2 against Zimbabwe. In that time he took 18 wickets at 11.88, six wickets at 68.33 and then 21 wickets at 11.29 . At the time, his Test bowling average excluding BN and ZIM was around 40+, but because of the bags of wickets against the minnows he had a career bowling average of about 26 and his world ranking went up to about #6 because of it. Also I looked up Saqibul Hasan from Bangladesh. From a superficial glance, his ODI stats are looking good, a batting average of about 35 and bowling average of 34 and economy of 4.2 and one wicket per match. (According to these stats his finger spin is about as good as Harbhajan). However, these figures have been slightly inflated as Bangladesh have played a large amount of ODIs against associate countries like CAN/IRE/KEN etc. Excluding his record against minnows, in 20 ODIs, Statsguru says he averages 20 with the bat, and has only 11 wickets at a bowling average of 60+ and an economy rate of 5.7. For the record, the ICC computer says that he is a superior ODI batsman than Sehwag and a comparable ODI bowler than Pathan, which seems rather dubious when comparing their form against non-minnows. According to the ODI rankings, he is the 15th best all rounder, whereas Pathan is 17th. Based on this, I wonder whether we should avoid using the ICC rankings? [obviously we can't put our OR in the articles about the rankings not scaling down cheap runs and wickets] Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I collated the stats of some semi-allrounders to see how they ranked in ODIs compared to Saqibul. Yuvraj 16, M Clarke 13, Sehwag 40, Ganguly 52, Dilshan 19, Bravo 13, Symonds 17, A Hall 36, J Kemp 57. All have vastly superior stats - among batting semi all rounders, most of them have bowling averages of 40 at most. All average 30+ except Hall (21), Bravo (25) and Dilshan (29). Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There are some things that numbers will never take into account, whether they be averages or rankings derived from formulas. The quality of the pitch, fielding, the weather and pressure situations are just few of the aspects that I can think off the top of my head that can never could never be adequately calculated. For this reason, I believe only the traditional statistical measures such as average, strike and economy rates etc. should be mentioned on Wikipedia. Random statistical experiments can stay on Cricinfo, Howzat and other websites. Gizza^Discuss ^© 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the rankings are a useful, notable and well-respected system of assessing a player. No, they're not perfect, but they're a much more flexible indicator than averages alone. Unlike averages, the rankings do attempt to weight performances versus strong/weak teams (pace Blngyuen's comments; they ain't perfect) which averages do not even attempt to do. Furthermore, when assessing historical figures, averages are misleading - Bradman's weight of runs on uncovered wickets are even more astonishing than if a modern day player achieved similarly. Whereas if a modern bowler came even close (over a long period) to achieving the sort of averages Tich Freeman routinely achieved in county cricket, he'd probably have to be the best bowler of all time. So, I'd say both are useful. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously they are, otherwise, we would conclude that Saqibul is a far better than even the rankings show him to be. Obviously, I'd rather not compare people like Trumper batting on uncovered pitches in the 1900s or guys who batted in the immiedate post WW2 era with no helmets on stickies against Lindwall and Miller. However, I do wonder how useful they are for comparing contemporaries of each other in two different tiers. In Tests everyone plays each other roughly the same amount, so they play about 10% each against each of the countries - actually they don't but they have roughly the same proportion of matches against minnows, eg say 4%-20%. But with ODIs, most of the top eight are playing most of their matches against each other, while BAN/ZIM are playing against the Associates and each other for 50%+ of their games, which is allowing them cheap points because it isn't even scaled properly. Some associate players who are pretty weak in county cricket are rated much higher in the ODI rankings than their counterparts who are in Test teams playing against other Test nations in ODI while they are plundering other associate players....Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So, in summary, are we agreed that both ratings and averages are notable flawed but useful measures? --Dweller (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the accuracy of ratings declines in ODIs for comaparing players who are contemporaries but play against totally different strenght teams. At least in Tests, play play against approximately the same strenght most of the time. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Not seen ratings being used for ODI in articles, but I suppose it's inevitable. I take your point that they'll be more loaded than Test stats. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles on Harbhajan, Second Test, Bucknore, Benson etc featured in Mint (newspaper)

[1]. There we are folks. The journalist who wrote this article contacted me after finding my name in the edit history of Harbhajan Singh. I did try and steer the conversation to get him to focus on the cricket project's achievements - The 2007 Cricket World Cup FA drive with Gilly, Colly, Bhajji, Cricket World Cup and us getting TFA on the first and last days of the tournament. Also I tried to get him to talk about the Times of India using our marvellous and some not so marvellous work, but he told me that his editor vetoed the idea of him bagging another newspaper. He also omitted all the info I fed him about the article on the Second Test being the pictured slot on T:ITN in the aftermath of the Sydney Test as well the info about our GA boom....Unfortunately my pleas for him to substitute off what I considered to be irrelevant - the stuff about my cricketing childhood, fell on deaf ears - since he thought it would be more interesting.. oh well... I was hoping he would focus more on the real wiki-action rather than just a few vandals and a few disgruntled Bengalis who were vandalising Dravid and Greg Chappell's articles. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's not a bad article (though a bit BEANSy) and the headline is positive, which is always important (I'll forgive the atrocious punctuation - but it does make me look for the edit button to click) --Dweller (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully a few more people on the subcontinent start editing cricket articles then...In a positive manner of course ?

I think that's a pretty good article. "It’s Wiki warriors such as Blnguyen who toil for hours every day, for no pay, and make Wikipedia robust and dependable. And thank god for that." Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

IPL teams

I've gone and changed the IPL teams on their respective articles, basically I did a little clean up, except for Bangalore, because it was already quite nice. If anybody has an objection or want to comment or anything, let me know. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Everton Weekes image

Can any eagle eyed editor tell me which chap in the image to the right is Sir Everton? --Roisterer (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what he looks like so I'm pretty sure it's the guy facing the camera. Crickettragic (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The image didn't specify who was who, which I have now fixed. --Roisterer (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wisden Cricketers of the Year...

... has fallen off the Featured Lists list. Here is the "discussion" that preceded that decision. Johnlp (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I somehow missed the announcement on the article's Talk page that it was under threat. I've now, in a piece of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, attempted to make the References clearer, to avoid the impression that those not familar with cricket might get, that the article was not properly referenced. JH (talk page) 10:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

List A cricket

Does anyone know if List A includes Twenty20? As far as I can see, this is not made clear in any of the relevant articles. Thank you. --Jim Hardie (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as CricketArchive are concerned, which is generally reliable if not a totally authoritastive soource, they are separate things. When searcching on a player, they are separate categories, and I've checked that if you search for List A matches then 20-20 matches are excluded. JH (talk page) 10:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information which is most helpful. I was asking because I wanted to expand the major cricket article. I have made a separate mention of Twenty20, which is nevertheless a form of major cricket. Best wishes. --Jim Hardie (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The ACS (who invented the concept of List A cricket) maintain a full description of List A on their website at the behest of the ICC. Here is a Q&A that should confirm that Twenty20 is not List A. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew. That does provide confirmation. I have made a slight amendment to the List A article to note that Twenty20 is excluded. Best wishes. --Jim Hardie (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Cricket: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 20 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it is a name you would tend to remember but I had heard of Kenneth Fiddling (yes, really!) and I knew he played for Northants. It seems to me that there are sufficient sources noted and that this is a notable subject for an article, given that he was a long-term first-class cricketer. Am I right that this meets the notability criteria? And, if that is so, what does one do about the article? Does one just remove the tag or is there more? I have not checked the other articles, incidentally, as none of them ring any bells (I see one of them is in red). --Jim Hardie (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

With that many games, he is notable. I have removed the tag. SGGH ^speak! 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Have just added a couple of refs to Elaine Wulcko, one of the pages listed, have removed the tag there as well. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 21:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that one of the reasons why articles can be erroneously thought to be unreferenced is that it's very easy to miss the little [1] at the end of the infobox that provodes a link to CricketArchive. There also may be a failure to understand by those who are not cricket cognoscenti that CricketArchive and Cricinfo are not just any old websites but carry at least as as much weight as most printed sources. JH (talk page) 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is probably the lack of inline citations in the main text that is the problem, then. As you say, JH, a citation in an infobox is not easily spotted though, even so, the reference still appears at the foot of the page! Those two sites are excellent. For statistics, CricketArchive is simply unbeatable.

Looking at the project home page, I presume a player who has made just one appearance in a major, first-class, List A match qualifies as "notable"? --Jim Hardie (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The nine people on the list are all first-class cricketers (or, in Elaine Wulcko's case, an international) and should therefore all meet the WP:ATHLETE notability criterion, in that they are "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport". But they're mostly pretty scruffy articles that could do with referencing and tidying up so that their notability is more obvious to all. Some of the others, though, look pretty doubtful to me. I'll respond on the Notability project talkpage and to User:B. Wolterding, in that they have been courteous enough to consult us here. But I'm only comfortable doing it myself for the nine cricketers. Does anyone want to stick up for the others? Johnlp (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boycott

Done a ton of work on this, aiming for FA one day hopefully. Really need some images? Any sources? SGGH ^speak! 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look at te article. I don't know if you wrote this bit: "Ian Wooldridge, who refused Boycott the captaincy in 1981..." It's not altogether clear whether it's the England or the Yorkshire captaincy being talked about, but Wooldridge, as a journalist, wasn't in a position to refuse Boycott the captaincy of either. JH (talk page) 20:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It was the England captaincy, however it was my mistake, his comment was made at the time that he was refused the captaincy, and I got a bit confused with my editing. Still a work in progress eh? Thanks for the spot SGGH ^speak! 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Clem Hill FAC

Clem Hill is a featured article candidate. There have been some concerns raised at FAC about the amount of cricket jargon in the article. Any assistance in removing and explaining where necessary would be appreciated. Similar concerns have been raised about the Ernie Toshack article as well. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 03:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Help request: GA backlog

Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject Cricket is to try to find time to review 2007 Kansas City Chiefs season and Unforgiven (2005). If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is this?

I found this image on Flickr and it has been identified as being New Zealander Chris Martin. I don't think it is though, my guess is Matthew Bell, can anyone confirm this? Cheers Crickettragic (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely not Martin. Martin is much skinnier and taller and has rounder eyes and curler hair, a bit like Stuart Clark. Also, Martin being a fast bowler would not wear pads underneath his pants, which indiciates that this fellow fields at silly point or short leg. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He's got the number 206 on his shirt, which is Bell's cap number. —Raven42 (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats definitely Bell. SGGH ^speak! 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Crickettragic (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand cricket team page

Is it just me or does stuff like the squad needed to be cleaned up into one table? Forgive me for just moaning about it, but I'm no good with making tables. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole page needs some work, 80% of it seems to be a list of national records. Crickettragic (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - for example, Daniel Vettori now qualifies as an all rounder as well as a spinner, so the categorisation becomes rather arbitrary. The table for the England cricket team article is better, in that it mentions which of Tests/ODI/T20I a player has been selected for. I don't think this table should have batting averages either - it just creates too many places to update the same information. I'll try to redo the table in the next week or so dramatic (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hope you haven't got going on it Dramatic, because I've been working on it for the last few days! Sorry if so. I've done it in the style of the England squad, with a tracker of last appearances in each form on the squad page. If someone could possibly have a quick look over it just to check it's all OK, invariably when doing a table that big, typing out different variants of batting/bowling forms, something slips through. HornetMike (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cricket World Rankings

I caught some vandalism of this article but closer inspection makes me think its a bit of WP:OR and possibly redundant anyway. I don't really understand (or care) how these rankings work so some advice is appreciated. —Moondyne click! 13:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs to make it much clearer that the rankings are for ODIs only, ie not including Tests. Until I clicked on the World Cricket League link that was not clear to me. JH (talk page) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that a hoax? India on 129 and Australia on 114? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism. SA overtook Australia at the top of the table after their sweep in Bangladesh. Check these edits: [2]. Fwiw, the ratings were out of date anyway (I would hazard a guess only by a few weeks - probably shortly before the end of the CB Series). Official table here, and I've fixed the article.

For the record, I've removed all of the teams below Kenya. They aren't members of the official ODI rankings. I remember there being some media coverage over Ireland getting added to the list after they beat Bangladesh/Pakistan/etc. at the World Cup. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, I just noticed the See also section - ICC ODI Championship/ICC Test Championship. This is a duplicate of those two (or, at the moment, just the ODI one). Also, Cricket Rating Systems. I would recommend perhaps merging Cricket Rating Systems & Cricket World Rankings as an overview of both tables that then forks out to the ICC Championship tables, or something.

And are Rediff cricket rankings/XODI Extended ODI Cricket Ratings notable? I've never seen them used before at all. I'm really not sure, and cricket doesn't really rely or refer to rankings as much as American college sports do on AP poll/Coaches' Poll or American pro sports do power rankings (no article, but see ESPN), especially rankings other than the ICC ones, as far as I know. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out that when this article was written, the ICC did publish a ranking table for all 101 ICC members that could be found on their site. The article being talked about reflected that table, not the official ODI list. That table has since vanished from the ICC website since its redesign, so this article can probably be deleted now. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the WikiProject tag

Having seen (yet) more speedy tags on 1st-class cricketers today, can I suggest we include a little signpost to WP:CRIN in our WikiProject tag? If it only helps deflect (say) 10% of these wearisome speedy/AfD attempts, it'd be beneficial. --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. —Moondyne click! 13:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK... I'll go ahead and make an edit, as no-one thinks it's a bad idea. I'm sure if any of you think it's horrible you'll let me know here, on my talk page, or by fixing it. --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. But not perfect by any means. I think ideally my insertion would be at the foot of the template, perhaps with a blank line above it, and preferably centred across the width of the box, but all of that is beyond my markup skills. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox Cricketer}} broken

It doesn't seem to change when you switch the balls/overs mode. Regardedly of what is chosen, it reads "overs" in the output and prints whatever the original number is. eg, Rohit Sharma and Piyush Chawla. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend using the far superior Template:Infobox cricketer biography instead. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

B-class rating criteria

I wish to propose that the provision of inline citations be made a key factor in the B-class assessment criteria. It seems to me that there is no clear difference between B-class and start-class. There are presently 415 B-class articles but many of them, in my view, should only be start-class. Conversely, there are many in start-class that should properly be raised to B-class.

At present, the criteria used by WP:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment for a B-class article states:

Has all of the elements described in Start-Class below and substantial content, although it is not a completed article and it may have attracted attention tags such as "expand" or "cleanup". It will still have significant gaps in content such as missing elements and additional references could be required. It may yet need editing for English language usage, clarity and balance of content. If there are policy problems such as copyright, NPOV, etc. the article if substantial should always be B-class.

Whereas I agree that a B-class article will probably be incomplete, it should not have any problems around references or categories. It should have a good lead section and, subject to scope and potential length of the article, it should be well-structured using sub-headings and paragraphs. I would expect a start article to be no more than "an expanded stub", but for B-class I would expect to see that a degree of care has been taken around categorisation (e.g., using the defaultsort facility) and especially the provision of specific inline sources per WP:CITE, not to mention improvements to prose, style and structure.

I think that by adopting this approach, it will enable the project to more accurately qualify articles for the B-class which is, after all, an important staging post on an article's route to GA, A and FA class. Regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking at something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/BCAD? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just the job. Thank you for pointing that out, Mattinbgn. I will see if I can "borrow" this rating method and make it work for the cricket project too. Best wishes. --Jim Hardie (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have amended Template:WP Cricket and WP:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment to enable the use of B-class rating criteria as an option for articles rated B-class and Start-class. The criteria are (see template for exact syntax):

B-Class-1=yes/no (it is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations)
B-Class-2=yes/no (it reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies)
B-Class-3=yes/no (it has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content)
B-Class-4=yes/no (it is free from major grammatical errors)
B-Class-5=yes/no (it contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams)
B-Class-6=yes/no (it is fully and correctly categorised and carries all appropriate templates) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Hardie (talk • contribs) 08:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again to Mattinbgn for his help which is much appreciated. Regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Tallon at FAC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Don Tallon. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The unpronouncable one and I are trying manfully to ensure first uses of cricket jargon are wikilinked or otherwise explained, but it's easy to miss them (as I discovered to my horror when I checked the diffs on the parts of the article I thought I'd already done!) so your assistance at the article, as well as the FAC would be useful. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ping* - more attention appreciated. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sehwag

Sehwag is going absolutely bananas against South Africa, 270 not out from 250 balls. Amazing as Astle's knock was against England this must be rewriting some records! He put on 200 with both Jaffer and Dravid, which i don't think has been done before. He's now reached his triple century, only the third man to do that twice, in just 278 balls. Nick mallory (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping he would make 400+, so that we could plug it in T:ITN, complete with a picture of course. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cricket task forces?

I am very impressed by the organisation of WP:MILHIST in which prominent cricket member Blnguyen is a co-ordinator. In particular, I like the way they have, in true military style, set up a whole raft of task forces (see WP:MILHIST#TF).

At present, there is no such organisation within the cricket project although the collaboration on the Invincibles is a task force in all but name.

MILHIST has 26 national forces, 12 general topic forces and 10 period forces: 48 in all.

Although cricket has a much narrower scope than military history, it is nevertheless substantial enough to warrant a division of labour along the same lines. For example, we could easily set up at least ten national forces and perhaps umpteen regional ones (e.g., Kent cricket, Mumbai cricket). General topics might include biography, terminology, women's cricket, records, Test cricket, Twenty20, World Cup, etc. Period topics could include early cricket, roundarm, the Golden Age, limited overs era, Bradman era, the Invincibles, WSC and so on.

Clearly this is a big ask. I think the best approach is to make a start somewhere and see how it goes. When one task force has been set up, it becomes a blueprint for others and added experience should ensure continuous improvement.

I am willing to create an initial task force page if there is sufficient support for the idea.

Best wishes. --Jim Hardie (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not set up a task force yet but I have amended the cricket project template and the rating criteria page to enable reference to task forces in the article assessment process. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Project banner for information. The task force examples in the syntax can be used as a basis for any future additions. Regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is all that necessary. The first is that MILHIST has six times as many articles and many more active contributors; six times as many articles but about 10 times as much FAs GAs and Bs, probably because a lot of the articles in WP CRIC were created in the drives for having articles on all international cricketers, a great number of which are still stubs. Also, with cricket, there is less topical variation in the content than there is in the military - since cricket has mostly been around for only 200-300 years while warfare has always been around. Therefore, the ancient Romans fighting in 200BC is quite a lot different than Mussolini's folks, whereas for 1800s English cricket and 21century cirkcet, it wouldn't be so difficult. Also for the variation in countries, cricket is pretty much the same in all countries, whereas in military stuff, there is a wide range of variation in fighting styles and weaponry and tactics, although with everyone knowing about each other in the modern era, they would tend to fight in the same way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fair comment, Blnguyen. As I said above, the scope is much narrower. Even so, I think there would be some mileage in having a group that focuses on, say, biography, while another concentrates on Australian cricket and so on. I think it is something to bear in mind and, if someone does want to create a group, the template can now accommodate it. Thank you for your reply. Regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, but I think there is no real reason why we need to do this: the military history project has 746 active members, and more than a hundred more inactive members. We have 1/4 of that, and I'm fairly sure more than 50% of those are inactive or drive-by editors. We don't have an unmanageable amount of conversation on this page, where topics can already be coordinated, so I think splitting it up further is unnecessary, and may not help at all due to the potential for putting discussion in too many different places. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions

During the test between Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in September 2001, Atapattu and Jayawardene were both "retired - out", the only two test players this has ever happened to. How were these dismissals shown on the official scorecard? Did they appear in the fall of wickets list? For instance, were 10 Sri Lanka players shown as out, or only eight? I guess there is a distinction between "retired - out" and "retired - out" depending on context, but I'm having trouble seeing it. . Anyone? 222.153.65.172 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They appeared on the official scorecard as "retired out". It counts as a wicket, though obviously isn't credited to a bowler. Andrew nixon (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew Nixon. But just to demonstrate my ignorance, can I please pose a situation. If a side has two batsman who have to retire because of injury, and all of the others (bar one) are bowled out, and the side scores 200, would that be for 8 wickets or 10 wickets at the end of play. I assume that it would be for 10 wickets in the case where two batsman were "retired - out" because they are actually out. But in the case of the two injured gentleman who retired, they are not actually out? No? Is it counted as a not out when assessing batting average?. Please bear with me. I'm not up with the play. 222.153.65.172 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right. If they retire hurt, they are counted as not out and can resume their innings at the fall of wicket right up to the end of the full innings. Their averages will also be calculated using however many runs they have scored as a "not out" innings. The side that is batting is counted as "all out" when there are no further batsmen available to come in. Usually, that means 10 batsmen are out, but it could be nine or fewer if there are casualties who are unable to get to the wicket to bat. Occasionally there have been tales of some heroism when a wounded batsman has resumed an innings in an effort to stave off defeat: a famous example was Colin Cowdrey in this match when he batted with a broken arm. A different scenario, where an injured batsman was unable to bat, is in this game and expanded on in the Harold Heygate article. Johnlp (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WOW. I ask a question, receive informative answers here, and then Chanderpaul obliges with an actual example by walking away from a game in the Windies to accept a few gongs at a function else where. He was on 78 at the time. The scorecard shows him as retired out. Great stuff. 222.153.65.172 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiwhakahaere (talk • contribs) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tail (cricket)

In order for a reader of a cricket-related article to understand what this term means, he currently really needs to read the top and bottom of the article redirected to. I propose to create a stub article at this term, so that all the information required is together. Any objections? --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems a good idea to me. It is misleading as it stands. --Jim Hardie (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess the cricketer

qp10qp (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Richie Benaud. --Roisterer (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"G'd morning everyone and welcome to the Third Test from Brandenburg..." --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wilfred Rhodes

Considering the stature of this subject as one of the greatest players of all time, the lack of references is most unsatisfactory and I see that concerns about potential copyright violation have been raised on the talk page. Could someone who has been closely involved with the article please investigate? Thank you. --Jim Hardie (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the three seconds needed to investigate the possible copyright violation mentioned on the talk page. The site in question http://tripatlas.com/Wilfred_Rhodes clearly says at the bottom that "This article provided by Wikipedia." so it's the Wikipedia article which is the genuine article. The talk page complains that the article reads like it's a biography - well, what's wrong with that exactly? Should we make it more amateurish? As for a lack of references, all the figures are in cricket archive, which is linked to as usual, if you want to look them up. There's also a link to the Cricinfo biography, which again links to his overall figures. Because of this I removed the 'unreferenced' tag because it was clearly inaccurate. If you want to add some references yourself to the body of the text I don't see anything standing in your way. Thank you. Nick mallory (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article lacks inline citations as required by WP:CITE and in its present state it would not be successful in any formal review, which would be a shame as articles about the game's greatest players should all be highly rated. I have an additional point about WP:NPOV as I believe this article fails its requirements too: e.g., a heading that includes "...hopeless in Australia". I have answered the question on the talk page but I do not have time to improve the article, which now has a Start-Class rating only. Regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRICKEYBIO - It would be nice if the rankings of this article improved. Has this new rating system been approved yet? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely optional as it cannot be enforced but it does work and I notice that User:AMBerry has tried it. The lists you have quoted reveal how much is to be done. I notice that many of the comments in the lists are to do with "peacock statements" and haliography. This is my impression too as it would seem that many of these articles were written by avid admirers rather than by objective writers. Regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. You yourself have called Rhodes one of the "greatest players" twice in this section alone. Does that make you an avid admirer or is that an objective view based on the overwhelming view of anyone who knows anything about the history of the game? It's all very well complaining about the state of an article but if you don't have 'time to improve the article' yourself just telling others to do so isn't very productive. If it wasn't for the work of 'avid admirers' nothing would get done around here. Regards. Nick mallory (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if my comments have given you the wrong impression of my purpose. I would not have raised the matter of the article's rating on this page but for the concern about copyright. Incidentally, I did not check the tripatlas site myself because I was prevented from accessing it by the browser, not because I was lazy. My purpose here has been summed up by Blnguyen who said above that it would be nice if the rankings in WP:CRICKEYBIO could be improved, and that is true of all cricket articles. Best wishes (and you don't need to repeat that). --Jim Hardie (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick, subjective comments about a player are fine in a Talk page. However in an article, any evaluation of a player ought to be backed up, either by giving relevant statistics (quoting Bradman's Test average is a pretty compelling argument that he was the greatest batsman of modern times) or by citing someone (or preferanly several someones) recognised as authorities. I'm one of those who thinks that inline citations can be overdone if they are used for every trivial matter of fact that can easily be checked in one of the references, but here they would be appropriate. JH (talk page) 19:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice via my watchlist that the article has been subjected to considerable cleanup by User:SGGH who has nevertheless requested numerous citations, particularly where insipid superlatives proliferate. I will put this on my to-do list and see if I can achieve anything but it really is a very poor article as it stands. --Jim Hardie (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

FLs in assessment table

The WP:1.0/I assessment tables now have featured lists as its own category. Since you guys have so many of them, I would recommend adding the a class=FL option to your template and relabelling the talk page banners on all of your FLs (they are now grouped in with your FAs). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Karnain

CI and CA has the first name of Shaul Hameed Uvais Karnain as "Shaul Karnain" but I strongly suspect that he was known as "Uvais Karnain". At the moment, I only have a Wisden report to support me, but can someone please check contemporary match reports. Tintin 14:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ian Craig FAC

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ian_Craig up and running... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Trumble

I have listed Hugh Trumble at peer review. Any advice on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 03:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Cricket/Anniversaries

We now have at least one entry for every day of the year, although many are just single birth or death events. Please, if in your Wikitravels, you stumble across an interesting and notable event, update the appropriate anniversary page. —Moondyne click! 07:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Graeme Smith

Graeme Smith is currently up for PR here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Graeme_Smith/archive1 any comments you have will be very welcome. 02blythed (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wisden Cricketers of the Year

Since the sad departure of one WP:CRICKET's finest contributors (User:ALoan), this former featured list has had a makeover and I've listed it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Wisden Cricketers of the Year. I would be grateful for the cricism and support of the WP:CRICKET community in order to get this relisted as featured content. I hope I and User:Dweller in particular have done it justice. Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you guys have put a lot of work into this today!! I'm a bit concerned with the use of the flags - to me, it makes it really difficult to read the information. Maybe it is because I have a raging headache, but the flags are making my eyes go funny. Also it means that some of the players names are wrapping, which makes it even harder. I think that people might consider the use a bit excessive if you take it to FL. I can see what you are trying to do though. –MDCollins (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well one of the reasons for delisting was the lack of nationality information. Can't think of a better way of doing it.. sorry about your headache. Any other suggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What about flags only for non-Englishmen ? Tintin 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That would help I guess, but wouldn't be consistent. However, since 80% (or more) are English, I guess a footnote along the lines of "All cricketers listed here are

English unless otherwise specified." What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried it here. It wrecks the current image selection, but that's no big deal. Is it better, worse, the same, more confusing, less confusing? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the sandbox version. Tintin 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've modified the page per your concerns, and added a note accordingly. I've had to rejig the images, and they appear great in my Safari browser but I suspect, as ever, there'll be a few gaps in IE7. Don't blame me, it's Bill Gates you should talk to! I've also tried to use more English player images but it's all about availability. Anyway, I'd be glad for you both to let me know how it works for you now over at the FLC. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it currently stands with England a default. I have just one suggestion to make which is that I think a photograph of Ranjitsinhji in his playing days would be preferable. --Jim Hardie (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Jim Hardie (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's better, I've also realised that I can stop the names wrapping by closing the sidebar and using the full width of the browser! Doh!. Good work, thanks. –MDCollins (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bradman

I would like to open up a forum for discussing the path to getting Bradman's biog article to FA. The article was edited down to try to comply with FA requirements, and a number of daughter articles created, which has resulted in a dog's breakfast while the original article is still too long for FA. The actual content is pretty good (well sourced, refs, just needs ce & tweaking) so I think if we can agree on a format for dealing with the large amount of info, FA shouldn't be too far away after that. My suggestion is to split it into two main articles (incorporating the daughter articles), and nom both for FA.

Phanto282 (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Those working on this might like to know that there's a very good piece on Bradman to mark the centenary of his birth in the 2008 Wisden. It concentrates on the "off the field" side of his life. JH (talk page) 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Golden Age of cricket

Without wanting to be seen as canvassing, Golden Age of cricket has been nominated for deletion. Now of course I am biased, having lately worked on Warwick Armstrong, Clem Hill and Hugh Trumble but if others have views either way they would be welcome there. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 09:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The nominator has now withdrawn his nomination, so is voting still necessary? JH (talk page) 09:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is still a deletion !vote on the books so I don't think it qualifies for an early close. Mattinbgn\^talk 10:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian squad and in general

I have just created an Australian squad listing (and tracker on the talk page) in the style I did the England and New Zealand pages. The page previous had three contract lists - the recently released 08-09 one, 07-08 and 06-07. I removed the latter two as they were redundant, but as Australia contracts so many players I left the remodelled present one up - with NZ and England I only have listed players who have played in the last year. This means that Beau Casson and Simon Katich are listed, but Chris Rogers and Luke Pomersbach are not - the latter two played in the last year, but haven't been given contracts. I was wondering whether people thought I should include them, and remove those who haven't played (adding a footnote at the bottom to say they've been contracted) or leave things as they are.

Also, is everyone OK with the style in general? When I've mentioned it before everyone seemed OK, albeit there was a limited response. As you can guess, I'll probably roll it out across the international pages (help if you want! it takes a while!), but I'll save my effort if people don't want it. Thoughts and suggestions? I left the age column in from the old Australia column (but removed the unnecessary months and days), I might implement that with England and NZ as I think that's quite a nice addition. Anyway, I'm rambling... HornetMike (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging a bunch of stubs

I've come across a number of articles (like Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 1987-88 and Indian cricket team in Australia in 1977-78 while doing some cleanup work and thought about merging them somewhere, considering they're all very short stubs. I don't really know too much about cricket, though, so I thought it'd probably be better to ask here first. My idea was to have one article, "Country cricket team in Country" (Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia, for example) instead of having a bunch of "Country cricket team in Country in 19xx-xx" articles. On the other hand, a few articles have already been merged into articles like History of Australian cricket from 1970-71 to 1985, which would be fine, too, of course. Any opinions? --Conti|✉ 17:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the hope is that all these stub articles on cricket tours will eventually be expanded to something more worthwhile. Given the number of such articles, in many cases that is unlikely to happen any time soon, though. As an example of what a fully developed article on a major tour could look like, I can point you at West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61. JH (talk page) 20:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if these articles could be expanded at all, but your example clearly shows that they can. Still, as you say, it's not too likely that most of these articles will get expanded any time soon. Maybe the stubs could be merged until someone actually starts to expand them into real articles? No information would be lost, after all. --Conti|✉ 20:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't object to that, so long as the appropriate redirects were in place to direct people to the merged article. However, it would only be satisfactory if all the articles to be merged were stubs. In the case of Indian cricket teams in Australia, for example, the most recent tour has a very substantial article, and I think it would be undesirable to put that into a merged article, although not doing so would make merging the India in Australia articles impractical (as you can't really include some tours but exclude others). JH (talk page) 20:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that every tour needs a separate stub (although I'm happy to have an article on any tour if someone wants to write a proper one). However, merging all the visits of team X to country Y over the years doesn't seem the right solution to me. I think I would have history articles for country X, split into decades or years or whatever makes sense. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging the stubs to "History of cricket" articles sounds equally fine to me. As I said, I'm not much of an expert in this area, so I probably shouldn't decide where to merge to. But they should be merged somewhere. :) There would be redirects to the right place from the merged stubs, of course, and only the stubs would be merged, not actual articles. --Conti|✉ 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Steven Payne

This article has been on the Request Article list since forever - but I am unable to find a notable player by this name - the only cricket-related individual I can find named Steven Payne plays for Ardley Green, and there are certainly no first-class players by this name according to Cricket Archive.

I have removed his name from the Requested article list, but please reinstate if you can substantiate his notability. Bobo . 00:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right: there's a Steve Paine who plays/ed for Tenterden in the Kent League, but I checked Payn, Payne, Pain and Paine and he was the only potential match I found. Loganberry (Talk) 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Largest stadium

Sorry if this is a silly question. When you say a stadium is the largest in a city, what do you mean by that - largest crowd capacity, largest ground area, largest area/volume including the ground and the stadium ? Or is it better to be specific about the parameter when you write about it ? Wankhede Stadium had claimed that it was the largest stadium in Bombay and a passer-by just made an attempt to revert it. Tintin 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to state the exact parameter. See tallest building for a bit on how messy such words as "tallest", "largest", "biggest", etc, can get. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now it reads "The Wankhede Stadium is the not the largest cricket stadium in the Indian city of Mumbai." Abeer.ag (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaah. That edit was the reason why I made the post above and then forgot about it. I have removed the qualification completely. Tintin 05:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sehwag

I updated details of Sehwag's test career on his page: I would be very grateful if someone looked over it once, since this is amongst my first updates, and I don't want to mess up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeer.ag (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Question on sources

I run across cricket articles from time to time, and I hope someone here can help me with this. Is www.cricinfo.com considered a reliable source for cricket player info? If not, what are a couple of good ones for referencing player pages? Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, cricinfo.com is definitely a reliable source, probably the best single source. Although for purely statistical information, cricketarchive.com is sometimes slightly more accurate. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much!--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of village teams

Are village teams such as Blewbury cricket club typically considered to be notable? I'd assume not but I thought I'd check here before taking any action. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not consider it notable, unless it had some particular historical significance or something like that. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. JH (talk page) 16:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Another notability question

I'm not about to write an article on one, but I thought it may just be useful to clear up just when an umpire is notable. Is it any one who has umpired a Test, ODI or Twenty20 International in men's and women's cricket, or expanded to all first-class and List A cricket? Andrew nixon (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think anyone who has umpired any fc/LA match should be considered "notable" since we have set the same standards for cricketers. Tintin 13:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not much of an issue for umpires in English f-c cricket, where almost all are former county players. JH (talk page) 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the notability standard, but it's not quite as clear-cut as it once was that "almost all" have county playing experience. This is the 2008 list. Of the 24 full umpires, three (so one-eighth) have played no first-class (or List A) matches. (Neil Bainton, Jeff Evans and Steve Garratt.) I don't know whether this is a record, though of course Test umpire Nigel Plews never played at fc/LA level either. Loganberry (Talk) 17:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree on notability. I think in earlier days non-playing umpires were relatively common. In the past half century or so, there have been others, including Don Oslear and Thomas Bartley. Bartley certainly umpired in Test matches. Johnlp (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Billy Bowden has also never played first-class or List A cricket.Andrew nixon (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)