Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:25, 1 May 2018

• WT:CRIC
• WT:CRICKET

Cricket Project‑class

This 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. WikiProject Cricket To-do list: edit history watch purge Article assessment Check Category:Unassessed cricket articles for class and Category:Unknown-importance cricket articles for importance: see Assessment Department for details Verifiability Update fair and unfair play, fast bowling, first-class cricket, googly, innings, leg break, limited overs cricket, not out, Pakistan Cricket Board, spin bowling, underarm bowling, wicket, and other fundamental articles classified by the WikiProject as high-importance so that they meet WP:Verifiability policy standards Cleanup There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format) Infoboxes Add infoboxes to the player articles found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes Cricket people Create articles about 19th century players who are listed in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket/19th century players Create biographies about Bangladeshi players from the task force redlink list Check the listing of key bios at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket/Key biographies and improve these to at least B-class. Create batting/bowling graphs for cricketers who have excelled in international cricket. Create articles for redlinks present here and here Cricket teams & countries Domestic cricket coverage is needed for Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe; Create articles from redlinks and improve existing articles in List of current first-class cricket teams; National cricket teams; Under-19 national cricket teams Create articles about cricket in these missing countries Create or expand articles on international tours from items in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles Create a link as such on Template:Cr-Aus/doc for Cricket Australia XI Images Add pictures (and remove template from address requests) in these Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of cricket people Add pictures for grounds missing photos from here On this day in cricket Expand the anniversary coverage for Portal:Cricket at Portal:Cricket/Anniversaries Umpires Expand ICC International umpire panel; ICC Elite referee panel; ICC Associates and Affiliates umpire panel Women Expand Women's cricket, Women's Test cricket and articles about women's cricket generally especially biographies and tours Update A number of lists need to be updated, can be found in Template:International cricketers and Template:National cricket captains Regularly updating cricketers' career stats. Other Export all cricket terms present in List of cricket terms to Wiktionary

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

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.

Notability of Test tours

Further to the point raised by User:AngusWOOF in the section #Discussion of splitting out Australian cricket team in South Africa in 1993–94 from History of cricket in South Africa from 1990–91 to 2000 above.

User:AngusWOOF raises his point pretty obliquely. Here it is: (striking out this. The statement below is not my stance on this but Marplesmustgo's statement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC) )

Every single Test tour since 1877, with the exception of eleven Test tours of South Africa from 1994 to 2004, has a separate page on Misplaced Pages. I have carried out a lot of work and every Test match up to 1985 now has a potted score on this site, but beyond that there are a lot of stubs on the lines of "1st Test - Match drawn".

I contend that every Test should have a potted score (a long-term aim) but every Test series should have a Misplaced Pages page. Every series already has its Misplaced Pages page with the sole exception of those 11 SA tours.

Is it reasonable to suggest each of those series should have its page now, even if the scores are stubs of the "1st Test - Match drawn" style, pending me getting into the 90s and adding potted scores to those articles? Or should they have redirects to "History of South African cricket, 1990-2000" when no other Test series has this? Marplesmustgo (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to discuss it here, then my questions are:

• Should each Test Tour of (country A) in (country B) in (year/season) have its own article?
• What are the acceptable sources that would suffice to show notability of the event? How many would suffice? It would have to be at least 2 to meet WP:GNG and have depth of coverage from WP:NEVENT

I look forward to your responses as this would be helpful to us who are focused on evaluating newly created articles or articles created from old redirects. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

If this question is aimed at me, which I think it is from your phrasing, the answer is (1) Misplaced Pages already answered the question - there have bee 800 Test tours since 1877 and all but 11 in South Africa have their own articles already, so yes and make it complete. (2) Cricket relies on very few sources, most of which are online. One scorecard suffices for them all. Wisden is enough. Cricket Archive is enough. Your suggestion of two is essentially fradulent and makes the uploading of articles more difficult. I can rely on Wisden for information without a second opinion. Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not aimed at you. I need someone besides you to answer this as we know your answer. GNG requires "multiple sources" which means 2 or more. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Test matches are widely reported with numerous secondary sources. They might be more difficult to find for some decades as they will be on paper, but you can be sure both national and international news reports are available. There are also plenty of cricket books published, and every Test tour will be covered in one book or another. Every Test series is notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

As per Jack N Stock, every Test tour is notable, cricinfo will have scorecards for all the matches and most likely match reports. go ahead and create the individual pages. Spike 'em (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

By that logic all first-class cricketers are notable because every single one is covered by CA (and CI, thereby fulfilling the multiple sources thing) and therefore randomly deciding some are nonpermissible by arbitrary and contradictory non-NPOV rules is idiotic and hypocritical. Just a thought. Bobo. 22:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Though your fork has little to do with the Notability standards for whole tours, I will say that WP:NSPORT states that "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion" A prose-free/link-free entry on CA or CI would fall into this category this in my opinion. I checked the CI pages for this tour and all of the Test matches have prose reports (though they look suspiciously like WP:UGC). Spike 'em (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thankfully the links in question are neither prose-free (they contain text prose regarding the role of the player and their statistics) nor link-free (CA at least contains links to the relevant first-class statistics on each player). The word "trivial" is an irrelevant, indefinable weasel word which just provides an excuse to flout NPOV. As for "generic standards of inclusion", CA and CI's standards of "inclusion" need not, and do not, reflect those of our own, and as such are merely a trifle and are being used as a distraction to our goals as a project - which, in any case, are being grossly disrespected. Until the day we include information on every single Lancashire League player, etc, etc, since 1892, this need not remain a problem. Bobo. 14:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no prose on any CA page: listing batting/bowling style or teams played for is not prose, it is just a database categorisation. My meaning of "links"(you can define your own, but it is not what I mean) is a link to a prose article that makes some detailed mention of the player in question, not page of more detailed stats. Very few players on CA have links to articles (they seem to have very few on there), but most major players on CI do at least have these. Again on CI, for the most notable players there is some prose description of their history / playing style etc. Trivial may be open to interpretation, but it is part of the guideline, so if you have a problem with it, I'd suggest you make a suggestion to change it. Until it is removed from there, I will use it in my deliberations. Spike 'em (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, I mean the Profile / Latest articles sections on CI, there is very little of this type of content to help write an article on CA. Spike 'em (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

None of the statistics on CA are in any way "categorized". If you're going to include Misplaced Pages articles only from those which *have* prose text on CI, then you're onto a loser from moment one and there are probably thousands of articles we'd have to delete on those grounds. "Trivial" is open to interpretation because it is a completely nonsense, filler word, and the non-NPOV guideline, as I've said from moment one, directly contradicts what is written elsewhere. We are achieving nothing if we cannot commit to brightline criteria - the exact same brightline criteria which is used in every other team sport on WP, football, American football, hockey, American soccer, baseball, basketball... Bobo. 15:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Bobo192 what is the status of CA and CI as reliable sources? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's put it this way - if we suddenly decided that CA and CI were not permissible to be used as reliable sources, we would be rewriting 14 years' worth of history on the project and giving ourselves the needless task of rewriting and re-evaluating thousands of articles. If anyone wishes to do so, may I suggest that they know what should replace it before they come up with this idea? Just like with the notability guidelines, it's all well and good to pull out arguments like, "I disagree with the inclusion of this first-class cricketer's presence on WP" but without some way of deciding how to back this up with some kind of brand new, NPOV guideline which would see all first-class cricketers on an equal footing, these opinions are worthless and unjustifiable. Bobo. 16:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Pulling another one at random from out of the air, Thomas Smith (cricketer, born 1899) is another example of a cricketer, the prose content of whose article has not changed in the nine years since I originally wrote it. If anyone out there were able to come up with new information based on new, reliable sources, then this would probably have been done by now. By the same token, if there was someone out there who would now be perfectly willing to complain about the article's inclusion on WP based on ONESOURCE or the presence of nonreliable sources or whatever, I respectfully suggest they should have done that nine years ago before this became a problem. Bobo. 16:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If editorial control is good with CA and CI, like a handful of staff members, then I don't see a problem with it. However, if any registered user can change content there, as with a wikia, or IMDb, then that's a major problem. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The irony being, of course, that while Misplaced Pages is busy trying to officiate over what is or isn't a "reliable source", it itself is not a "reliable source"... Bobo. 17:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOURCE means you can't cite Misplaced Pages itself about the subject. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Modern day cricinfo is part of ESPN so is the work of journalists / editors. Some of the content from its early days seems to be contributed by users (their reports on the series you ask about has email addressees of contributers in it). I don't know what sorry of editing was done in those days, but their stats and current content is reliable. According to the source linked from ESPNcricinfo#History "In its first three years, Cricinfo was developed as a volunteer-driven tool, with a focus on archiving scorecards and other statistics of ODIs, test and first-class matches." This would cover 93-96. Spike 'em (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Although both are not without errors at times of course. CI I'm happy enough with and includes lots of Wisden archives as well. It has much more prose than CA. CA I have more issues with at times with regard to reliability - there is an element of user generated content, but not at the sort of level as imdb for example. There's occasionally the odd bit of prose by the way - Don Ambrose profiles for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Both CA and CI have strong independent editorial control. CA's ancestry comes from the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (ACS) and its editors have included leading cricket statisticians, some of whom merit WP articles in their own right. CI has more of a journalistic/publishing background, but is also reputable. CA does very little narrative, but its stats on matches, seasons, tours and individuals are its forte, and can be regarded as authoritative at least back to the mid 19th century. "User-generated content" isn't an issue on either CA or CI for the kinds of cricket that WP would seek to cover: FC, List A and T20 cricket at international and national level. Johnlp (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Having read quite a lot of the archive issues of the ACS journal recently, it seems clear that there are many different opinions about a whole host of things and a whole number of variations. I wouldn't call CA "authoritative" about anything to be frank - reliable, yes, certainly back to the late 19th century, but given the variations and the odd error that no more than that. Once you get to Minor Matches it is particularly sketchy, and that's often where there is the most interesting information and seems to be where it's most reliant on user data entry. Before the late 19th century I have more problems and at any point before the 1820s or so there are more questions again. It has its uses but, personally, I wouldn't overplay it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I already commented at Draft talk:Australian cricket team in South Africa in 1993–94. Briefly, it seems clear to me that every Test and, I would expect, every full-member international tour would generate such a level of press coverage that it would be very difficult to not show notability. Interestingly this isn't included in the notability guidelines and I can't find any discussion to show that it was ever discussed in the archives - although it may have been. It may be that it's been considered self-evident that tours like this should be notable.

One of the issues with the tours that I believe AngusWOOF is concerned about is that they took place before media archives from internet sources exist and after free access to online newspaper archives are available (The Times, for example, stops in 1985). I have no doubt that paper archives in the countries concerned would contain plenty of coverage. And I mean no doubt. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources can be WP:OFFLINE as well. Just that the stubs that are proliferating either had zero references or pointed to CA solely, and that's not enough to meet the coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who knows anything about cricket knows where to add a second source to biographies online as long as these are pointed out beforehand rather than sent to AfD for ONESOURCE or similar. As I've said before, there are a dangerous number of even Test biographies which do not cite either CA or CI - or one but not the other. Citing both would cancel out ONESOURCE. We probably should go through all the Test cricket biographies to make sure these articles are sourced in the most basic way. Ricaldo Anderson is one example of a non-Test player whose article prose hasn't even been altered since I created the article nearly 12 years ago! Worth noting that the subject-specific guidelines regarding first-class cricketers have not changed in this time. Bobo. 01:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This and the other article you mention average less than 1 view per day, so rather than it indicating that people are happy with their content / existence it is far more likely that no-one with any interest in tidying up your pages has come across them. If you really think that there are no more sources available to expand on the articles, then WP:WHYN says an article should not exist: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Spike 'em (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And no matter when the article was created (and not withstanding the fact that not all editors were around when you went on your stub creation splurge) WP:NTEMP states "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.", so there is no limit on how long someone can wait before raising issues with an article. Spike 'em (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If you can convince me that subject-specific article inclusion criteria have changed with regard to first-class players since I've been around, that's all well and good. Bobo. 22:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that no one has come across them necessarily. Smith will be difficult to expand - I found a middle name but that's it. His name doesn't help - although there must be a reason why he was on the Gold Coast. I can't find an obit in Wisden either which is a shame. I think there's a Hampshire book isn't there? That might have something.

In similar sorts of circumstances you can sometimes find good stuff - from Wisden, Hart's Army Lists, school or university registers and so on. Or you run across something in a book or they turn out to be famous for something else entirely. But working them up takes time and that's where the problem is - there are so many cricketers and someone has got to either stumble across the article or be working methodically through some list or other. And there aren't many people doing that. Oh, hello by the way. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Misplaced Pages. See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals. Bermicourt (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The one feature on the old cricket portal that isn't replicated on the cricket project main page is the "On this day..." feature. I think this is quite nice to have, but I don't have a clue how to get it transferred across to our main page, or whether the background files that keep it ticking over might need renaming if the portal disappears, which seems likely. Johnlp (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting... Johnlp, does that mean you would not oppose deletion of this particular portal? If the WikiProject does not want to maintain it, then that's the logical thing.

Unfortunately this has become something of a test case, and people from outside the WikiProject are being encouraged to update the portal. Is there any point in this, long term? Andrewa (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a deletion, it would be a merge.    — The Transhumanist   07:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In a way, yes... but in terms of the RfC, I think it would be a deletion, see below. Andrewa (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The files could still be kept at Portal:Cricket/Anniversaries/January/January_1 etc, or could easily moved by an admin/page mover using the move subpages functionality (to a subpage of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket); transfering it would be easy. (could add it to the cricket project page now without the transfer of pages) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There's another WikiProject willing to upgrade and maintain it: The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Portals. And it falls within the scope of that WikiProject as well.

The display boxes "Featured article", "Selected picture", "Featured list", and the "In the News" feature don't appear to be displayed on the WikiProject page. Even if they were moved to there, they would seem out of place.    — The Transhumanist   07:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The "On this day..." feature struck me as the only one on the Portal that would be suitable for the WikiProject page, being self-updating (and therefore low-maintenance, though it could of course be added to). The WikiProject page's casually updated "features" of recent deaths, featured articles and articles under threat of demotion/deletion perform to my mind a more useful news function than the static features displayed on the Portal. I've had the Portal on my Watchlist for a dozen years and more, and it's barely altered in that time, so I'd not miss it if it disappeared, if any useful parts were distributed elsewhere. Johnlp (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The question here still is, is anyone here at this WikiProject interested in maintaining this portal? If not, then yes, perhaps WikiProject Portals might be. But if not then there's a case for merge or deletion, IMO, either of which means the end of this portal as such, and supports the claim in the RfC that this is an example of a portal that we'd be better off without. Andrewa (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There is more than one type of good portal. Some are actively maintained with the latest news on a daily basis. That's not necessary here; plenty of other websites will give me today's ODI score and this year's test schedule. What we can do is make a decent portal on a one-off, fix-and-forget basis, avoiding topics which no one may care about in five years. (So W. G. Grace goes in, but not this season's teenage sensation.) We can create an illusion of regular change with automation such as random selected articles and an "on this day" based on the current date, none of which requires ongoing effort. Does a cricket enthusiast want to take this job on, or would you prefer to leave it to the portal squad? Certes (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Player Infobox- Domestic Teams

Many players like Chris Gayle, Dwayne Bravo and Kieron Pollard have become globetrotters and play for many domestic teams across various leagues. As User:Spike 'em has mentioned on Template talk:Infobox cricketer that Gayle has played for 21 teams up-till now. I could not find the discussion which User talk:Galobtter(pingó mió) mentioned in reply. My suggestion would be that expand the number of teams in domestic sections and also increase parameters for mentioning the league in which the team is (e.g- Mumbai Indians (IPL)). Because with so many similar named teams it is not easy to understand form infobox. Footballers have 4 parameters for each domestic team and I believe that league and appearances would be more useful. Shubham389 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• What about a seperate "T20 team information" heading and section, for all the T20 teams; but still, it is way too long IMO - is pushing his statistics - more important information - down, and what not. Each team in the section mattered more before T20 leagues so it makes sense to exclude them, as being ephemeral Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There have been suggestions to completely overhaul the player infobox, but they never gain the required traction.

A couple of points:

If Gayle keeps going like this he'll end up with 30-odd teams and infobox will be worthless as it will be so long and unreadable (it has probably reached this level already)

The infobox is not meant to have information not found in rest of article : a number of his teams are not mentioned in the main body of the article. Spike 'em (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussion is Archived here. Please also check out some trial versions of infoboxes by Harrias and Me. Spike 'em (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion link. It has been discussed in December 2015 and November 2017 but no consensus has been made on how to start it even though every one agrees there is a serious need for the change. I like the T20 country-wise infobox but there would be a additional challenge for leagues like Tamil Nadu Premier League and Karnataka Premier League. My suggestion would be when a player plays only T20 for a team it should in separate collapsable set in hide mode. But to generate a final consensus should there be a focused discussion on Template talk:Infobox cricketer and may be then we can start changing the infoboxes.Shubham389 (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Even though the previous discussion didn't have that much participation, there wasn't any strong opposes to the ideas. I say be bold and go for it and see who pops up to disagree. Lugnuts 19:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Could this be implemented using child infobox which would collapse by default inside the main infobox? That would (I think) allow a modular approach to be taken? Which might be easier - we could then deploy the T20 infobox when it's needed and stick with the main one with when its not needed. Would that work? Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:2009 ICC World Cup Qualifier

Please see the deletion discussion for this template here. Thanks. Lugnuts 14:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

ESPNcricinfo citation

Hi. As per a discussion a month ago, it was a consensus that while using the particular site as a source of reference the name "ESPNcricinfo" (which is the name of the site) will be used and not "ESPN Cricinfo" or "Cricinfo". But even after that a certain user is being disruptive and changing all my edits without any proper explanation like in Nand Kishore, Abhijit Deshmukh, Virender Sharma, Anil Dandekar, Krishnappa Gowtham, KM Asif and so on. I request you all to see to this and decide what should be done as an experienced editor isn't sticking to consensus, repeatedly deleting the agreed upon format and in the edit descriptions calling me out by names saying "the rat is back" and so on! Cricket246 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Cricket246 being a WP:DICK again. "Cricinfo" on its own is also fine. And also keep an eye on this troll's edits on 2019 Cricket World Cup too. Lugnuts 20:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The name of the company is "ESPNcricinfo"... The Wiki page is also named ESPNcricinfo... Cricinfo is not an official name anymore as clearly the name has changed and it was the former name so it's not really fine... Show me one place where it's officially used... Any more counter arguments?? The name is officially "ESPNcricinfo" ask that will stay, if anything else is to be used then a clear consensus has to established among members at first before making such changes!! Cricket246 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Cricinfo is also fine. Don't you have anything better to do than change a date here and there and a C from upper to lowercase? The answer is no, incase you were struggling. You add zero value to this project, a total net drain to everyone. Go find something productive to do with your life or get lost. Lugnuts 07:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Project-Class cricket pages
• NA-importance cricket pages
• WikiProject Cricket articles