Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Cricket: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:38, 15 September 2017 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,942 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 82) (bot← Previous edit Revision as of 10:53, 15 September 2017 edit undoLugnuts (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers1,509,055 edits →Our project is under fireNext edit →
Line 297: Line 297:


Apparently, WP:CRIC is "easily the most toxic place on Misplaced Pages" and has serious ] issues, etc. Please see . Thanks. <b>] &#124; <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 19:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Apparently, WP:CRIC is "easily the most toxic place on Misplaced Pages" and has serious ] issues, etc. Please see . Thanks. <b>] &#124; <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 19:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

:However, Reyk said that, so it's the equivalent of four-year old child saying they hate their older sibling. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 10:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:53, 15 September 2017

Skip to table of contents
Shortcuts
WikiProject iconCricket Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Cricket To-do list:
Article assessment
Verifiability
Cleanup
Infoboxes
Cricket people
Cricket teams & countries
Images
On this day in cricket
Umpires
Women
Update
Other

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Archiving icon
Archives

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


This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"Bodyline" or "bodyline"

I've always thought of the tactic as Bodyline, with a capital. And indeed, when Bodyline passed FAC and got its shiny star, that's how the article looked. Subsequently, someone has changed all the incidences of the word that don't begin a sentence to a lower case b, and I'd like consensus here on which we should go with. (I'll post at the article talk, too). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I've just looked at a couple of sources in the article and they appear mixed between Bodyline and bodyline. My tendency would be towards Bodyline. – PeeJay 11:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Helpful. Let's get consensus and then go for consistency. Please will you note your view below, so it's really easy peasy to assess consensus? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • B --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Both, depending on context without looking at any references my gut feel would be "Bodyline" for the historical cause celebre, and "bodyline" for the tactic from a cricket POV. So "Douglas Jardine captained England during the Bodyline controversy of 1932/3. The West Indies team of the 1980s often bowled bodyline balls". Bowling methods tend not to take a capital letter, not even a chinaman.Le Deluge (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Both, per Le Deluge The overall controversy would have a captial B, while the tatic would use a lowercase b. Compare the opening line of the second paragraph of the article in question, and it would not be correct to use a captial B in that case. Lugnuts 12:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Both: I previously would have said B in all contexts, but having read what Le Deluge has written, realise that this makes much more sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Both A bit late to the party on this one but I agree with the sound reasoning of Le Deluge. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Optimisation of the cricket team template

There is a discussion regarding {{infobox cricket team}} that could use your input. Please join in the conversation here. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have left my comments there. I encourage others to do the same. Regards – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Draftification of over 500 cricket biographies

Due to some alleged (I haven't looked into this myself) poor work in creating articles from User:02blythed, a large number of articles that user has created or expanded have been taken out of mainspace and into draft space. This includes numerous international Test cricketers. I don't have time to look into this too much myself, but they are all included in Category:Draftspace cricket articles by 02blythed. Harrias 11:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I would have hoped that @DrStrauss: would have consulted this project before undertaking this action, but hopefully that user is still planning to consult with us, as advised at the Administrators' noticeboard discussion. Harrias 11:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Bloody hell. We'll need to roll our sleeves up. Incidentally, I saw a passing comment in the AN discussion about Cricket Archive. I'm not sure what's wrong with using them as a source. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Erm, I don't get it. What policy would demand that Draft:Akbar_Ansari, the second article I checked, be draftified? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Can't wait. Just found one of a cricketer who played 71 Test matches and the biog includes a string of reliable source references. Draft:Chris Martin (cricketer). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes - I think there may need to be some distinction drawn between crappy stubs and ones that have been worked on by someone. Even if they're still stubs they might be acceptable stubs (given that the notability criteria isn't changing anytime soon) Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
This is an abuse of AWB! Hack (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why this WikiProject wasn't notified of the discussion? What was so very pressing about doing this for articles, many of which are up to 10 years old, before we could weigh in? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly I apologise for accidentally categorising some articles which didn’t fall under the remit of the discussion at WP:AN. There isn’t a “created by” filter in AWB so I made some regex filters which sought out the hallmarks of the articles in question. About 15 ones were categorised but were not moved as I went through each one individually to check. As for Hack’s assertion that this is an abuse of AWB I’d say that it isn’t because I was implementing community consensus from a closed WP:AN discussion, secondly, I didn’t actually move the pages with AWB, I did that manually, and thirdly, none of the actions I have taken have contravened the recent WP:ARBCOM case on AWB, nor violated the WP:AWB/UM.
Secondly, I’d like to put forward an explanation of the original rationale. Many of the articles were WP:BLPs which means that information must have multiple, reliable sources, whether they’re 10 minutes old or 10 years old. While CrickInfo etcetera may have correct statistics on cricketers’ careers, they do not confer notability. WP:ATHLETE offers deference to WP:GNG and a recent WP:RfC (link) solidified the community consensus that WP:GNG supersedes subject-specific notability guidelines (except WP:PROF, about which a reform discussion is currently taking place). While the cricketers are probably notable per WP:ATHLETE and many of them per WP:GNG, we need to remember that Misplaced Pages isn’t a directory. Many of 02blythed’s articles were mere directory entries and besmirched the good name of this WikiProject.
Finally, please don’t take this a victimisation of WikiProject Cricket, I myself am a cricket fan but I am just implementing both consensus and quality guidelines.
Thanks, DrStrauss talk 12:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Why didn't anyone notify the WikiProject of the discussion at any stage? It's the most obvious thing to do. There was no emergency here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, DrStrauss, you've done a terrible job of this. The first half dozen articles I've checked, all of them have 2 or more sources. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you please save us a lot of time and use the tool to revert yourself on anyone who is dead? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are ones containing "died":

  1. Draft:Abbas Khan (cricketer)
  2. Draft:Tom Abel (cricketer)
  3. Draft:William Abel
  4. Draft:William Abell (cricketer)
  5. Draft:Donald Adams (cricketer)
  6. Draft:Geoffrey Adams (cricketer)
  7. Draft:Sidney Adams
  8. Draft:William Adams (cricketer)
  9. Draft:Alfred Adcock
  10. Draft:Joseph Adcock
  11. Draft:Charles Adderley (cricketer)
  12. Draft:Charles Addis
  13. Draft:Charles Agar (cricketer)
  14. Draft:Thomas Ainscough
  15. Draft:Jerry Ainsworth
  16. Draft:Ralph Alderson
  17. Draft:Ernest Alderwick
  18. Draft:Frederick Alexander (cricketer)
  19. Draft:John Allan (cricketer)
  20. Draft:Charles Allen (cricketer)
  21. Draft:Cecil Allenby
  22. Draft:Richard Allsop
  23. Draft:Frederic Allsopp
  24. Draft:Herbert Allsopp
  25. Draft:Hampden Alpass
  26. Draft:Josceline Amherst
  27. Draft:Clifford Andrews
  28. Draft:Rupert Anson
  29. Draft:Thomas Anson (cricketer)
  30. Draft:Alexander Anstruther
  31. Draft:George Anthony (cricketer)
  32. Draft:Geoffrey Antrobus
  33. Draft:John Antrobus (cricketer)
  34. Draft:Arthur Appleby
  35. Draft:Francis Appleyard
  36. Draft:Arthur Archdale
  37. Draft:Audley Archdall
  38. Draft:Osmond Ardagh
  39. Draft:Ashish Bagai
  40. Draft:William Copeland
  41. Draft:Robert Dick (cricketer)
  42. Draft:Stell Haggas
  43. Draft:Kuntal Chandra
  44. Draft:Bob Lambert (cricketer)
  45. Draft:Arthur Seccull
  46. Draft:Tamim Bashir

DrStrauss talk 13:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a step in the right direction. If you pop those articles back into mainspace and remove the category (which should be a hidden one, btw) from them, and maybe trawl the subcats of Category:Deaths by year, that'd be a good start. We can then work through what's left and see which ones (like this) do need work, because none of us would deny that there is a problem: BLPs with 0 or 1 reliable source. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the thread at WP:AN. The board that states "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators" Maybe an active admin would have spotted it? Thankfully, the issue of this user's poor-quality work, that was raised before with the project, has now been addressed. But don't worry, they've not been mass-deleted, just moved into draft. So if anyone has the time and/or effort to clean up the mess, then they are welcome to get stuck in. Lugnuts 14:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
And most of the articles are utter turd, so it's no issue if they were G13'd. Lugnuts 16:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
+ 1 DrStrauss talk 16:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that Draft:Ian Billcliff was not created by the user in question, so checked all other international cricketers I could spot in the list that have been made a draft (excluding Bangladeshis) ... all of the biographies below were created by someone else;

  1. Draft:Ian Billcliff
  2. Draft:Umar Bhatti
  3. Draft:Chris Foggo
  4. Draft:Sunil Dhaniram
  5. Draft:Corey Collymore
  6. Draft:Austin Codrington
  7. Draft:Lionel Cann
  8. Draft:Stefan Kelly
  9. Draft:Malachi Jones
  10. Draft:Kevin Hurdle
  11. Draft:Barry Milburn
  12. Draft:Claude Henderson
  13. Draft:Dean Minors
  14. Draft:Asif Mulla
  15. Draft:Henry Osinde
  16. Draft:Steven Outerbridge
  17. Draft:Irving Romaine
Can these please be moved back. I'm sure there are others as well. Jevansen (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
... and a bot has been "commenting out" categories so these need restoring as well. So, I note that some of the articles draftified were not at all as described at the AN discussion and so did not have the blessing of any consensus there. Thincat (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
... and redirects to the draftified pages have been deleted because they were pointing to "deleted" pages. Thincat (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@DrStrauss: – now that the bot has commented out the categories in lots of these drafts, do you have a quick way we can find them all, as they are no longer all in the category you created. Could you provide a full and comprehensive list for us please. Harrias 06:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Harrias: link to advanced search. Hack (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
As a general rule, the only non Bangladesh articles that Blyth created had surnames beginning with A. I expect as many as 50 articles not created by him were moved, in addition to deceased cricketers and properly sourced non stubs already discussed. This has not been done well. Jevansen (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
50 seems a bit optimistic. Hack (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've done a few of those above that Jevansen posted, unfortunately, the authors are all inactive and I'm not sure these kind of articles are on any watchlists, so we'll have to look deeper to find the rest. —SpacemanSpiff 07:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It really wasn't a difficult task to identify the articles to review in the first place, it was made a lot harder than it should have been. I'm haven't used AWB for some time (only the script version), but my understanding if you can paste article names into the list box, in which case a simple check of this widely used tool would have revealed all of the articles the user has created. At the very least you have a list for crosschecking. Jevansen (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This link will show all mainspace and draftspace article created. Hack (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The move log also is a way of finding the articles draftified and has the advantage of (I think) including any subsequently speedy deleted under WP:G13. People are entitled to disregard draftification/refund when making G13 requests and acting on them although it is not considered best practice. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've moved somewhere in the region of 100 of the articles back to mainspace now. I think most of what is left is genuinely problematic stuff, though I've probably missed a couple. To be fair, even a lot of what I moved back is stuff that does need work, but wasn't covered by the AN discussion. We're annoyed at these moves, but we need to be aware that there is a genuine problem here that we need to fix. Harrias 09:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all this – I saw what you had been doing when I was checking the original move log (see my comment above). I think none of the drafts were speedy deleted. Thincat (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have consulted the admin who deleted some/most/all of the redirects. See User talk:Malcolmxl5#Deleted redirects. He is trying to help but it seems there may be no systematic way of restoring these. Thincat (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've worked my way through my deletion log for yesterday and have restored about 30 redirects where I found that the target pages had been moved back to mainspace. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Malcolmxl5 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
About 52 redirects have now been restored or recreated. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Another eight redirects have been restored. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If you're looking to help

  1. Please visit Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket/Draftspace cricket articles by 02blythed and pick an article
  2. Check it has at least two reliable sources
  3. Move it from Draft space to Article space and uncheck leave redirect behind
  4. Remove the 02blythed category

Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Added a note to #1. Harrias 10:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Note that it wasn't just about sources, per the original AN thread. It was also about article quality. Most of the articles created by this user had no internal wikilinking (teams, cricket terms, etc) and no categories. Any of these issues not addressed will be moved back into draft. Lugnuts 12:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not true. The consensus was given for BLP compliance/notability reasons, which is nothing to do with quality. If you want to improve the quality of the articles, edit them, don't move them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're wrong. If you'd participated in the discussion at the time, you could have clarified that, but you didn't. So to avoid that, just clean up the article before you move it. Simple. Lugnuts 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I can read an AN discussion without having participated in it. I'm very happy for you to take whatever steps you like to avoid "disruption from this user", meaning me. I'm very well known on Misplaced Pages for being highly disruptive. You'd better click here now before my disruptive behaviour gets out of hand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: as this project was never notified of that discussion, it is not helpful to suggest that our opinions aren't valid as we didn't participate. I do agree that some of the articles need more than just referencing checks, but Dweller's suggestion is a great place to start work. You are absolutely correct that the Bangladeshi cricketers articles in particular, but others too, aren't really even worth the work to save. But there was a lot of collateral damage in the process that is. I think I caught and saved most of it, but there was certainly other stuff in there that needed little more than some referencing upgrades. Harrias 13:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Well if an active admin was about who is involved in this project, maybe they could have notified people. But they didn't. I also raised the issue about this users incredibly poor work some months back, but it was pretty much ignored. I should have gone to AN instead like Dr S did so people would listen. I'm glad Dweller has admitted being disruptive - that'll be very handy to note for the future. I'll let you all get back to wiping 02blythed's backside. Lugnuts 13:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Well someone needs to clean the shit up, given that all you seem to want to do is point at it and shout. Harrias 13:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd hardly say that the previous discussion (archive 81 up at the top - search for 02blythed if you need to) was pretty much ignored Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dweller: – I hope you don't mind: I edited your list to refer to a page I created with what is hopefully all the articles in question. Harrias 15:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller:. Thanks for letting me know about Argent (Middlesex cricketer), although it was originally a 02blythed stub (I only renamed it). I've found the relevant match in S&BII so, in case it is true that there are serious objections to CA (which seems to be inferred at ANI), we do now have an undeniably reputable source in that article at least. Jack | 18:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting drafts

Why are people deleting redirects from draftspace? WP:RDRAFT is pretty clear that these redirects should be kept. Hack (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

THe ones I deleted weren't actually drafts, they should never have been moved to draft space, therefore deletion seems logical. I think the same holds for many (if not all) that were deleted by Harrias. —SpacemanSpiff 03:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Had I known about WP:RDRAFT, then I'd have left them. I didn't. Harrias 06:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. They are not drafts per se. The purpose of RDRAFT is for new pieces of work that have been reviewed as drafts before upgrade to article space. The blyth items are articles that should have been tagged for improvement but were erroneously (and messily) moved to draft space instead. I believe the drafts should therefore be deleted on redirect. Jack | 07:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to stop you, I just think you're creating work for yourself. Hack (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It only takes one extra click to remove the redirect, Hack. You simply uncheck the "Leave a redirect behind" option on the move page. Thanks for your help, btw, and I think we would both welcome some more helpers as there are still 263 entries in the list. Jack | 10:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't have that option – I'm not an admin and I don't have WP:PAGEMOVER permission (a user right which I believe any admin can grant). Hack (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Was that a hint? Harrias 11:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe... Hack (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, Hack. I'm afraid I never remember where these rights-given facilities have come from and take them for granted; they are very useful. The updates you do, leave the draft in the list as a blue-linked redirect and I'll get rid of them in due course. All the best. Jack | 11:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Batting average templates

Following are the two templates which I think don't serve any purpose. They were used for navigation purposes but with the deletion of the page List of cricket batting averages they are reductant now. Continuously updating them after every match is tiresome. Also, they are based on 20 innings criteria which is too inclusive.

Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Test template: I think this is good/important, but we used to have a consensus (I think) to exclude current players from such things, on the basis that it's too ephemeral and the decline lots of players suffer before they end their career makes including current players invidious and pointless. If we excluded current players, that would deal with your problem of updating. In terms of serving purpose, I'd have it as a nav template on those players' biogs. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
If it were 50 and completed careers only, there'd only be three players on it! Harrias 10:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not really a good reason for Misplaced Pages to focus on a random figure. Why 40? Not 35? Not 45? Not 41.14. Do we have RS that say a completed career average of above 40 in ODI is the bee's knees? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but that applies equally to the Test list; why 50? Just because it is a nicer round number? Harrias 10:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Google shows lots of RS discussing 50 as a benchmark for all-time quality. Here's just one example, ironically arguing that we should shift and consider 55 the new 50, but in so doing demonstrating that that is exactly how cricket fans perceive the mark: --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you. We should atleast remove current players.Greenbörg (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We also have this in the Don Bradman FA quality biography (see chart on right), which is the top 10. I've just updated it, to dump Sanga for Voges:

Completed Test career batting averages
Don Bradman (AUS) 99.94
Adam Voges (AUS) 61.87
Graeme Pollock (RSA) 60.97
George Headley (WI) 60.83
Herbert Sutcliffe (ENG) 60.73
Eddie Paynter (ENG) 59.23
Ken Barrington (ENG) 58.67
Everton Weekes (WI) 58.61
Wally Hammond (ENG) 58.45
Garfield Sobers (WI) 57.78
Source: Cricinfo
Qualification: 20 completed innings,
career completed.

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: But Voges is still active. He hasn't announced his retirement. Greenbörg (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Greenbörg () --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Greenbörg (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The ODI batting averages template still has issues. Greenbörg (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd delete the ODI one. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:ELREG

Looking through some of the 02blythed entries in the draft list, I notice that CricketArchive is named in some as an external link and that it carries a "subscription required" notice. This breaches WP:ELREG. I suggest that the subscription notice is removed from all articles because it is pointless and doesn't help anyone, especially if, as I am (perhaps reliably) informed they will do, CA terminates subscription next year. Jack | 18:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If it was used as a reference, it can be used as an inline citation, particularly where CA has information that CI does not include. Hack (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. We can't just remove the subscription notice and pretend it isn't the case. If CA removes the need for subscriptions, fine, we'll get rid of it. But otherwise, the only way to comply with WP:ELREG is to remove CricketArchive as an external link. As Hack says, it is perfectly acceptable as an inline reference. Harrias 18:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Cricket at the Olympics at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts 07:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Now withdrawn by the nom. Lugnuts 16:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure the article could be bulked out with more history on why cricket hasn't been an Olympic sport and the steps it needs to take to become one though. mgSH 19:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Another problem on the 02blythed front

See here. I've written to User:DrStrauss for him to resolve.

All the Pakistani players whose names begin with "Aa" have either been moved back to article space or sent to WP:MfD. Jack | 13:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed above; that was why I had to create the separate list, as we couldn't rely on the Category. Harrias 14:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Right. I wasn't in the original discussion and I've only skimmed it after Dweller alerted me to the problems. Anyway, the category is still out of synch with the list. Jack | 07:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There are at least a couple of international players still stuck in draft, Draft:Dhiman Ghosh/Dhiman Ghosh (14 ODIs and the Indian Cricket League) and Draft:Shamsur Rahman (cricketer)/Shamsur Rahman (cricketer) (5 Tests, 10 ODIs).

What a mess.

Indeedy, indeedy, indeedy. It's a triple mess. First, we have an editor with dyslexia who, despite being prolific, cannot produce work of the normally required standard. Second, we have the usual clowns at ANI who think that a discussion in which five of them take part and three of them vote produces a "consensus" that is binding upon the whole of WP – oh, and naturally they don't invite WP:CRIC to take part in their discussion in case we display some knowledge of the subject. Third, we have a so-called "draftification" done by someone whose competence must be (and has been) called into question. Not so much a mess as another fine mess. Anyway, thanks for your help. Jack | 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, one positive result is that some of the problematic content is being tidied up (text copyedited, sources added etc). Kudos to you and Hack and others. Perhaps that would not have happened without the firm shove that was given here, but it does seem rather disproportionate and also hit-and-miss. There is the perennial problem of some people discussing a problem and voting for a solution, but not themselves helping to sort it out. To be fair, the ANI discussion did conclude with the recommendation that WP:CRIC should be asked for input *before* "draftification" (ugly term) went ahead. Pity that was not done, to save time with the various Test players with impeccable sources and little problematic text (Andy Sandham! even Shivnarine Chanderpaul was on the list), the dozens of dead players where there was no BLP issue, etc.

Would you be interested?

Please see this campaign launch. All the best. Jack | 11:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Templates

I don't know why these templates exist. They don't have pages so they are navigating arbitrary selected numbers. They are:

Last one was created by me two years back. Your feedback will be appreciated. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

They're a waste of space. Do you want to take them to WP:TFD? Jack | 18:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@BlackJack: Yes, that was my intention. You may nominate them. Greenbörg (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

HELP – needed from ALL project members

Yes, it's Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket/Draftspace cricket articles by 02blythed again. There are now 255 entries left in the list (down from way over 300) and there are only half a dozen of us actually doing anything. So, can we have some more keyboards working on this to get the job done, especially belonging to those who like to complain but leave the work to someone else. Lets say that we double the half dozen to a dozen. 255 divided by 12 is 21 remainder three so I'll do 24. How long would it take you to do 21? Three days? Come on, then. We're a project team so lets see some teamwork.

All you have to do is pick a player and tidy up his article. If you want to reserve certain players, add a comment in the "notes" column. Find him on ESPN and add that reference to the narrative. Most of the drafts have the CA reference in there already as an external link or in the infobox so you don't have to worry about subscriptions. Put that reference in the narrative too and delete the EL section (you can delete the infobox too if you're not happy with it; many of them contain errors). If you choose a draft that doesn't have the CA ref, tell me and I'll get it for you (no, I don't subscribe). If you can't move the draft without leaving a redirect, again tell me and I'll do it. Easy. Thank you. Jack | 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I took the plunge and added refs / moved Draft:Waseluddin Ahmed, but I didn't seem to have any options about keeping / removing the redirect.Spike 'em (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Spike. Don't worry about removing redirect if you haven't got pagemover. I can do them. Waseluddin is done. Thanks for your help. Jack | 12:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

American Cricketer at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts 06:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 up for deletion

Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 has been nominated for deletion. Please consider contributing to the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 10#Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40. StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

U19 cricket tour at AfD

Please see this discussion. Note a very similar article was also deleted a few months ago too. Thanks. Lugnuts 10:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Another first-class player at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Jack | 11:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Our project is under fire

Apparently, WP:CRIC is "easily the most toxic place on Misplaced Pages" and has serious WP:OWNERSHIP issues, etc. Please see this ANI discussion. Thanks. Jack | 19:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

However, Reyk said that, so it's the equivalent of four-year old child saying they hate their older sibling. Lugnuts 10:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cricket: Difference between revisions Add topic