Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 91

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. 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 85

←

Archive 89

→

Rugbyfan22's proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a very complex proposal, with a number of moving parts and therefore establishing whether a consensus exists is particularly sensitive to not merely counting noses. While the participation was limited in absolute number of editors, it was not in terms of thoughtful discussion. Especially given the difficulties that this topic area has experienced in the past with notability, the participants are to be thanked for avoiding animosity. The proposed guidelines are acknowledged by their author to be an interim step in pursuit of a hoped-for widely-acceptable standard. In analyzing the comments below for consensus, therefore, the level of opposition and the arguments against the standards become especially important. In examining those objections, the two most prominent arguments against are that the particulars of these proposals should be changed and that the SNG promotes a tendency to create articles about persons that do not meet wider definitions of notability. The first objection can be addressed through the continuing regular editing process. The latter objection has been addressed within this discussion by suggestions which would make the SNG explicitly subordinate to the GNG. There was no meaningful objection to such suggestions. While nobody thinks that the proposals are the last word on the subject, it is therefore clear that a rough consensus to implement these proposals exists. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Should the current cricket notability guidelines be changed? 19:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Now that there has been support and good discussion over my proposal, I thought I'd take it one step further to give I guide on what I think would be the best way in implementing this change. In my mind the proposal involves three separate areas: WP:OFFCRIC, WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN and my changes would be the following:

1. WP:OFFCRIC

Replace the list of male domestic competitions with the list I have created as listed above in the discussion.
Remove the World Cricket League from international competitions as It's unlikely players in associate nations without ODI status would have presumed coverage (happy to drop this one though as I'm a bit undecided over it)
Add the Rachael Heyhoe Flint Trophy and Women's T20 Challenge to the list of Women's domestic competitions.
Any further additions/removal of competitions to this list should be vetted by the Cricket WikiProject before addition/removal to the list in the future.
Add information on associate nations in T20I which removes notability for T20Is not in a World T20 or Global Qualifier (mens and women's)

2. WP:NCRIC

Edit point 1 of NCRIC so that the list at WP:OFFCRIC is linked. So it reads Have appeared as a player in at least one cricket match that is judged to have been played at the highest international or domestic level
Remove point 3 if the World Cricket League is removed from WP:OFFCRIC (but keep if not removed)
Add a point Umpires are presumed notable if they've been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires or meet another of the above points.
Move current point 4 to point 2 and remove regional finals (mens)

3. WP:CRIN

Add the WP:OFFCRIC link to line 1 (the same as point one of WP:NCRIC) and additional line on umpires and remove line three as above if World Cricket League removed
Change the paragraph that reads Senior domestic first-class competitions include the County Championship, the Ranji Trophy, the Sheffield Shield, etc. Senior domestic limited overs competitions include all List A matches and the Twenty20 Cup, Indian Premier League, etc. Senior individual matches (i.e., played outside organised competitions) are those shown to be important, especially if historically significant, by substantial secondary sources as outlined in Historical sources. to Senior domestic first-class, List A and Twenty20 competitions that are deemed likely to lead to presumed notability for men's and women's cricketers can be found here. These are competitions deemed to have been played at the highest domestic level. Senior individual matches (i.e., played outside organised competitions) are those shown to be important, especially if historically significant, by substantial secondary sources as outlined in Historical sources.
Add a section reading Players and umpires that have played in or officiated in other first-class, List A and T20 matches and competitions that are deemed not likely to lead to presumed notability may still be notable if they can be shown to pass the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

Some of the wording could obviously be changed, but I think the main ideas of my proposal are set out here although I'm still open to ideas on improving certain bits of my proposal. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, this is all a Good Thing.

In CRIC what is meant by "judged by a substantial source"? That seems to be vague and open to interpretation. It might be worth considering an alternative wording, such as:

Have appeared as a player or umpire in a competitive match between two teams playing in a top-level domestic competition. See the agreed list of top-level domestic competitions.

I know that's not particularly different, but my gut feeling is that the whole "substantial sources" and "highest level" stuff was added in an attempt to be able to justify the inclusion of matches going back to 1709, rather than what we actually mean: played in a first-class etc... match. I know the list will help, but it would be better to take that ambiguity (which was added without any discussion iirc) out of it. Competitive could be removed easily fwiw.

I would suggest that CRIN needs to be largely gutted as well fwiw. In particular:

CRIN suggestions in detail - collapsed to not make this too long

the paragraph at the bottom that starts "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted..." should be immediately underneath the list at the top. This is a really significant paragraph and has been in CRIN since at least 2007 - at which point it was a much shorter document. It's been pushed down the document and has become something that people never get to; it's actually really, really important to consider it imo;
the paragraphs dealing with Full Member status could be cut down to a list effectively;
be very careful about Historical sources. It's not very useful because the link doesn't actually list sources - if anything is seems almost designed to confuse and almost leads us to "I have a book and you don't" as a way to justify inclusion. I would rather see it removed or replace by something that says what is actually meant: there are lots of useful books about cricket, and Wisden, Lillywhite etc... are particularly useful;
the paragraphs starting "Note that the term "first-class cricket" is misleading..." and "In practice, this project has de facto tended to..." need to either be removed entirely or replaced by a single, short paragraph saying "hey, there are some good sources; think about using them" (as above). The statements about single-wicket, players from 1709 etc... need to be removed entirely. I have no problem with saying that some players who never played first-class cricket might be notable; if there are sources, not just names in scorecards. But that was part of a deliberate push to redefine what first-class cricket means.
some parts can be cut down or subheaded more efficiently - the clubs, teams and venues section for example;
it would be useful to consider something about tours, competitions and individual matches - these are occasionally added and it would be useful to have some sort of guidance. There have been issues with Under 19 tours being created before, for example;

I have no problems with the things that are being suggested, and the list of competitions is a sensible idea. But CRIN is a significant problem that really doesn't help anyone's case just now. If it can be made shorter, more readable and actually say what is meant when people use it to support an argument, it would be really helpful.

At some point it might be worth making clear that an alternative to deletion is redirection to a list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all the points you've mentioned here. I'm surprised at how long CRIN is compared to other sports, but then again cricket and definitions of matches can be difficult. Perhaps rewriting CRIN is needed but I think it should be a whole other discussion entirely as otherwise we're giving ourselves a lot to do. Obviously if my proposal doesn't pass then I'm happy to support the rewrite as you've suggested. A lot of it does seem to all be about inclusion. I think I've mentioned in a discussion previously about how you could basically say any FC, List A or T20 match was a significant match and that is wrong. I think we're better saying off these are the competitions notable under SNG, if a player has played any form of cricket in another competition not listed then need to pass GNG or can be placed/redirected in/to a list. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Have also edited the line at NCRIC to remove the substantial source bit, as it's covered in my change to CRIN anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for late arrival in this discussion: I said I’d put my thoughts down, but RL does not get any less busy. I’ll try to be as brief as I can be, but there are complicated issues here.

I think the idea of having an easily-accessed list of competitions that would qualify individual cricketers to be considered potentially notable is a good one and should be done. But I think we also need to recognise its limitations. What, for instance, about matches that took place before the competitions were set up? Or matches that are outside the competitive framework? There’s a danger here that we start drawing lines that reflect our own perceptions (or prejudices) rather than any external “measure”, and that is uncomfortably close to OR.

There is, I think, a way around this, but I suspect that it may not be universally popular. It’s to go on using the definitions of “first-class”, “List A” and “T20” cricket matches, as we have been, but to tie them firmly to a single externally-derived definition (so not our own definition, but a widely-accepted external one). For recent history (since 1947) and with List A and T20, that’s relatively simple, since national cricket authorities, co-ordinated through ICC, determine the status of fixtures. Further back, there are more problems, but the Association of Cricket Statisticians (and Historians) (ACS) has spent many years drawing up and agreeing lists of first-class matches in all relevant countries, weighing up the strengths of teams and of the individuals in them, and giving due consideration to historical context and later development. Its lists are as close as we’re likely to find to being definitive: there are a few places where there has been controversy, but they relate to just a few matches that affect long-cherished statistics and won’t impinge on WP:NCRIC (the article Variations in published cricket statistics explains it rather well). The ACS definitions are used certainly by CricketArchive (and that’s the quick way to check if a match is first-class or not) and, I think, by Cricinfo too; ‘’Wisden’’ mostly agrees, with the minor exceptions mentioned in the article cited above.

So I’d propose that we simply adopt the ACS definitions of what constitutes a first-class, List A or T20 match, and cut out all the fluff about Haygarth, Ashley-Cooper et al (which was there largely to justify a previous participant’s wish to extend notability for individual cricketers back into the 18th century, when the ACS definition goes back only to 1801 in England). That means accepting the definition as a “bright-line” go/nogo rule. So no pursing of the lips about some competitions in some countries: if the ACS and the ICC say a match is first-class, then it’s first-class, and similarly university games in England and Wales up to 2020 and ad hoc teams where appropriate. Top players appearing in these fixtures count the runs scored and wickets taken in these games in their personal averages, so we really shouldn’t cavil.

I’d then propose that the SNG says that any cricketer appearing in a match recognised (by the ACS and/or the national cricket associations through the ICC) as first-class, List A or T20 has the potential to be notable (and therefore to have an individual article) by dint of their appearance. BUT mere appearance on a scorecard is not enough to justify that potential: there has to be significant coverage on them as an individual, either by depth of coverage or by number and frequency of mention or through noteworthy deeds or incidents. So no specific threshold of one, five or 10 appearances: the threshold instead becomes coverage by sources other than scorecards and databases, and that links into GNG and SIGCOV.

What about the earlier 18th century cricketers? Well, my view is that they’re covered by the GNG, not the SNG, and that they won’t struggle to be justified under that if there’s multiple mentions in, say, Haygarth or Britcher. But they’re the tail, not the dog, and they’ve wagged us for too long. Johnlp (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your views Johnlp. I agree that the current definitions of cricket on here are messy and that taking the ACS's guide to what is in an isn't (which I'm guessing is used by CricketArchive and Cricinfo) is a good way to go, and much clearer to understand for the reader. In terms of your other proposal about a significant source it's very similar to a proposal going on at WP:NSPORTS so it may be policy anyway, but StickyWicket and Bobo192 have both opposed making a change like that, so not sure how popular it would be, as it would likely prejudice against non-recent players and non Anglocentric players. Although my list may bias slightly against the later due to the difficulty of providing sources, at least the less-recent players would be protected. The SNG is there to presume notability not show notability also, and the proposal basically takes away any power the SNG has for article creation as any article would have to pass GNG before being created anyway, but if this is a view that people like I'm happy to go with it in a way of moving the project forward. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the threshold is to be significant coverage, we can simply scrap NCRIC altogether; after all it's purpose to provide a reliable indication that coverage exists and a search will be worthwhile. Without the requirement for SigCov, I strongly disagree with using any definition of FC/LA/T20 as they are the cause of many existent and deleted/redirected biographies on non-notable cricketers (e.g. minor counties LA and university FC players, and the aforementioned Pakistan mess – for which the ACS has horribly incomplete early records); it would also (again) completely disregard GNG, which NCRIC must now be calibrated to. Most importantly, it simply would not gain approval at NSPORT. Finally, OR is a content policy and of no concern when formulating the criteria of a notability guideline. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Wjemather, do you have a view on how the text could read around FC/List-A/T20 matches, or do we go with something similar to that I have suggested for NCRIC? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the presumption of notability in the SNG remains, and article creation can remain unchanged. Personally, I have no problem with retaining permastubs indefinitely, since they indicate that "this person existed and did these things, but we don't know much about them", and that in itself is useful. But that isn't a popular view outside this project, so maybe we should suggest some time limit within which a "verification" should be done. The overall problem is, in my view, the woolliness of GNG and the folly of trying to compare notability across different fields of knowledge, more than the individual SNGs. But our SNG really doesn't help our cause. Johnlp (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That is one gripe I have with the NSPORTS discussion, people tend to be most upset about the stubs, but want to change notability guidelines and not stub guidelines to fix it. Obviously some SNGs need tightening, and what we're discussing will help the cricket one. A lot of the permastubs were seeing are in Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Zimbabwean and Minor counties/university cricketers and at least by removing them as notable from the SNG we should see less of these permastubs, although there may be a WP:BEFORE aspect where they can't be mass deleted as they were notable at time of creation. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is too broad for me to support. It's pretty clear from the ongoing AfDs that List A matches do not lend themselves to coverage. I'd start with listing the competitions which clearly lend themselves to coverage: the IPL, the Big Bash League, the World Cup, major international tests in the last 20 years at least (I know this is too recent, but I'm just stating the clearly obvious here), and then identify other competitions which might and start reviewing players from there. For instance, the Sheffield Shield might get coverage, but literally nobody goes to those games (except for the odd thrill-seeker who takes a day off work to sit in the MCG by themselves.) The County Championships do get coverage, but they might not get enough coverage for a player who played a single match in the second division, et cetera. SportingFlyer T·C 12:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The List-A players all at AfD now are all minor counties players who played in matches that were given List-A status that they shouldn't have been, as Wjemather mentions above. As far as I'm aware they don't actually pass NCRIC under it's current guise, but removing all List-A matches is broad as lots of the competitions in the list do bring significant coverage for those playing. I'm not sure what fan attendance has anything to do with it, its coverage is sources and we're not seeing Sheffield Shield players at AfD. I appreciate that any changes that are proposed here are unlikely to go far enough for you, but then on the other hand sweeping changes are unlikely to be accepted by those on the project, and this is at least working toward fixing the issue, and further changes can be made if there's still problems in the future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the same range of offline sources that others do, but my experience has been that finding significant coverage is a struggle for players who don't meet the following criteria: playing for a Test playing country (men & women) in any format; playing for a country with permanent ODI status in an ODI or T20; playing for any other country in a world finals; playing regularly for team with FC status in a top level domestic competition in England & Wales, Australia or New Zealand (and maybe India, but perhaps less so historically; and in other countries/regions only fairly recently – it's possible this is due to lack of availability of online archives, but I rather suspect it's simply because coverage of lesser players doesn't exist to the level it does in Eng/Aus/NZ); playing in one of the leading franchise T20 competitions (IPL, Big Bash, CPL, PSL, etc.) (and The Hundred if/when that happens); umpire on the ICC elite panel. Unfortunately, that's just how it is. In any case, our readers would be served better if players without significant coverage were detailed in substantial lists (not just lists of names), where the raw data (because that's virtually all we have) would be given context. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That way mell be the case, a lot of List-A players playing in the UK/Australia/NZ/India and probably the West Indies will probably have played in either FC and/or T20 cricket as well meaning significant coverage could have come from those competitions. What you're suggesting is a drastic change to notable games in the cricket SNG and I have no idea if the main creators would be happy with that. StickyWicket states there's significant coverage for the Irish competitions for example. I think basically we're happy with the T20 aspect of the list (with the potential addition of the Hundred (I know vile) to male and women's guidelines and maybe the Euro T20 Slam given some of the players stated to play in it, when they both kick off) but both FC and List-A comps could do with some work, but there haven't been many comments on them apart from on Pakistan. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a sea-change, and possibly an unpopular one. It would be great if we had evidence to expand. I would note that abundant coverage of competitions does not necessarily translate to coverage of players, and the farther back we go the more this is true. It's also important to differentiate between the franchise T20s and regular domestic T20s. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is true. I was able to find lots of coverage of the Zimbabwean comps but not much on the players so removed it. In terms of T20 I feel that all in my list would likely lead to presumed notability, having removed the more large number of teams domestic ones, but I'll look again at the SMA Trophy in India. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think cricketers who appeared in Vijay Hazare Trophy (with 38 teams, thiry-eight!) pass WP:GNG. Unless we can prove with 4 or 5 players that single appearance is good enough, we should remove this and other tournaments. I agree with wjemather, we should be very selective in start. Störm (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I thought it was a smaller tournament with 8 or so teams. I've removed it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd support changing it to the competitions identified by Wjemather above, and adding additional competitions as notability is demonstrated. It also does not mean other players cannot be notable on GNG grounds. Also, some List A competitions may be notable, but it's clear just because a List A match gets played, that doesn't mean those players will be notable. We have to be competitions-based instead of classification-based. SportingFlyer T·C 11:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We'd have to have some form of WP:BEFORE policy set up, as this would likely lead to potentially hundreds maybe thousands of AfDs of cricketers with no GNG coverage in the article (although its likely it exists). My proposal was and is a competition based proposal and not classification based. If you read the changed I've made to the WP:OFFCRIC document and my edited version it shows that competitions I've removed from the original one. When I first suggested it I was hoping for more comments on what should be in/what shouldn't, but it's mainly being people saying yeah its a good idea but not expanding on it. Wjemather's list I doubt would too much different from what I've suggested, minus one or two tournaments. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Support. This is why decisions of this nature should be in-house because we get users who come along who quite clearly haven't the first clue what they're talking about, then try to impose their will as policy. "It's pretty clear from the ongoing AfDs that List A matches do not lend themselves to coverage." Not true. English, Australian, New Zealand, West Indian, and Irish one-day tournaments all receive good levels of coverage. I can't comment on Asian teams as they will be in native language sources, though given the cricket mad nature of them I'd image there's quite a fair bit of coverage there too. Not sure about SA and Zimbabwe as I've never dedicated the time to working on cricket from those countries as my interest in mostly cricket in the British Isles, though I'd imagine in SA there's good coverage. "The Sheffield Shield might get coverage, but literally nobody goes to those games"; the Sheffield Shield gets lots of coverage. And how is not many people attending the game relevant in any way? Last year all matches were behind closed doors, does that mean because the attendance was 0 they are not notable?

In short Rugbyfan22 I support much of what you're suggesting. Though a few of points:

Removing the World Cricket League from international competitions, I think that very much depends on which country it is. If the country is cricket mad like Nepal, I'd suggest a good case could be made for their players remaining as coverage in Nepalese sources will exist. Countries like UAE or USA, probably less so as cricket is a niche expat sport with very poor coverage in those countries. Also, while it can be argued they are international sportspeople, the ICC did not give international status to most matches in the WCL (Div 1 and 2 only I think).
Umpires at domestic level (unless former players with widespread coverage) should have the number of matches they umpire in expanded. I recently went through the redlinked umpires in the 2000 NatWest Trophy article and could find very few who stood in more than one List A match. IMO they are not notable and literally no sources existed for them. So maybe that inclusion criteria needs to be widened?
On List A and T20 matches, again perhaps this needs to be widened and done on a case-by-case basis. If a minor counties cricketer made one LA appearance, but played 20 years in minor counties and plenty of sources exist on the latter part of their career, I wouldn't be against including them.
We should stick as rigidly as possible to the ICC definition of official cricket, so that the project matches inline with the sports governing body, and as mentioned by Johnlp, the ACS defintion before that.

That aside, it's a support from me. Happy to see men's and women's cricket being applied the same level of status. Our problem with sources also seems to stem largely from cricketers between 1945 to 1990. Older cricketers you can dig plenty up on in newspapers, books, alumni registers ect. For some reason coverage after the war to the 1990s (before the net) sucks, with even Wisden getting a little lazy with its obituaries. And when redirecting to lists, it would be nice for lists to be little more than a bog standard boring shopping list. Let's make them interactive: matches played, span, runs scored, average, high score, wickets taken, bowling average, best figures ect. StickyWicket (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments StickyWickets. On your bullets if feel that countries like Nepal now have ODI status and the more notable players are those that are going to play ODI or T20 cricket. Some others from the WCL days may have coverage, but then they'd pass GNG anyway. Obviously as these nations keep growing, their historical players might become more notable and then it could be discussed again in the future, but picking on choosing notable teams from the WCL would just add confusion. On umpires I've not really considered it. Wjemather suggested the ICC panel as a notability level but I don't know. A fair few with likely have been former players yes, but maybe again it would be better if it was a case-by-case basis. In terms of minor counties cricketers being notable, again fine if you pass GNG, and should be covered by the Players and umpires that have played in or officiated in other first-class, List A and T20 matches and competitions that are deemed not likely to lead to presumed notability may still be notable if they can be shown to pass the wider requirements of WP:GNG. section, unless I've completely misunderstood the point. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,400 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, was unaware of the need for a simple question so apologies, the one that has been placed by another user since I last read this page is a perfectly acceptable one. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

~~Neutral comment~~ I'm not sure whether this will really help. A player who played one or a few games for a first class side a long time ago is unlikely to have attracted the same amount of coverage as players nowadays. I'd suggest a time cut-off for this (somewhere in the middle of the 20th century?). Even today, given that T20i status is granted to all international sides since 2019 (including some from nations whose cricket capabilities are, at best, dubious, and where coverage might likely be very scarce), I'm not convinced that a player from such a country who played one game would automatically gain the kind of coverage required... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It will certainly filter out a lot of non-notable cricketers. None at AfD in the moment or over the past month would be notable under this updated criteria. In terms of older players that's recency bias. Coverage likely exists for these players also, but it might not be as accessible because it may well not be online. Notability isn't temporary. In terms of T20I status I've not seen any problems with creation on these types of articles either at AfD or people complaining about stubs on them, not sure other cricket editors would want to remove it either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The (current) fourth bullet point of CRIC addresses the T20I issue. I think it's reasonable to include that as a caveat for T20I/T20 appearances somehow - it makes it more complex and it probably needs to be linked to the first bullet point somehow - I remember this actually being discussed and thought about by people who know more about associate cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

- Oppose as written this won't help solve one of the fundamental issues, which is as shown at multiple AfDs that playing X games in a first class or other "high level competition" is not always sufficient to meet GNG (especially given the changing nature of cricket from an amateur to a professional sport in the last century...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Support - thanks Rugbyfan for your work. I fully support WP:NCRIC proposals made above. Störm (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Rugbyfan22 I think the ICC will be placing more emphasis on Nepal in the coming decade, so I can only assume their cricket well continue to gain traction. Picking and choosing what WCL countries to create articles on could get messy, I agree. Almost a blessing then that many of them don't have widespread coverage on their teams, let alone individual players. Namibia will be one exception, seeing as they played in South African domestic cricket for years. On umpires, tdefinitely on a case-by-case basis sounds sensible. Take Ron Lay, didn't have a playing career but did stand in 304 matches. StickyWicket (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Nepal now have ODI status don't they, so it's likely that the better and likely more notable players will play ODI cricket and pass from that. For me I think we should leave it out for now, and revisit in the future. We could add associate nations that subsequently received ODI status (so historical players from those nations are included) but that will then include USA, PNG, Oman and the UAE who we won't see much coverage for. I think it's probably just better to go on GNG for them, as if there's coverage then there can be an article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

In terms of umpires obviously there's the ICC Elite Panel, and then case by case if they pass GNG, or if they've passed another part of the guidelines from their playing career. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Looking through all of this and I do agree that this is a right step in direction which will only be beneficial to the WP:CRIC community in large. HawkAussie (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Support. It seems to me that this project, more so than other sports projects, is in something of a stalemate situation over the issue of notability. The SNG has got to be fit for purpose so there can be no argument about notability if a bio meets the criteria. GNG should only be a consideration if the bio is definitely outside SNG. Having read this after the long drawn-out discussion at NSPORT, I support Rugbyfan22 because the proposal will certainly move things forward. Some fine-tuning may be needed to deal with exceptions but that can be done later. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment. I fully agree that a significant change is warranted, but I cannot support the one proposed here, specifically with regards to WP:NCRIC. The bar is simply still way to low with notability still judged to have been achieved by appearing in merely one match. Notability is simply not judged by merit, but by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which do NOT fall under WP:ROUTINE. Merely appearing on one match card however is exactly what falls under WP:ROUTINE and thus this SNG should not use such a thing as a notability bar in any way.T v x1 19:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The one match/game played matches every other sports SNG at WP:NSPORTS. It appears your issue is likely with NSPORTS in general rather than just the cricket related guideline. I believe that with the proposals I've suggested that playing one match in one of the competitions specified will bring presumed coverage to the player playing the match. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I think the point of this is that we've significantly cut down the competitions that we're including in CRIC. The ones that are left are the ones that, in our experience, there's a good chance that the majority of players will have some significant coverage. I've literally just written up a biography of a one match player from 1922 who has enough coverage for me to be reasonable secure that GNG is met easily - certainly much, much more easily than the majority of one appearance footballers, curlers, baseball players etc... from 1922. I think we're being very transparent that that's the point here - I was actually about to bring that very point up on Rugbyfan22's talk page as something we should be probably be super clear about.

That, as far as I can tell, is the point of having an SNG - to determine which people are likely to have enough coverage to suggest that we could write a biography about them. It doesn't guarantee it, but in the case of the competitions we're including it seems reasonable - and this is based on the sorts of things we've found at AfD over the past year or so (e.g. Australian's have coverage in general, often very good; Sri Lankans often don't; Minor Counties players probably don't etc...).

As Rugbyfan22 suggests, if it's reasonable in every other sport, then I think it's fair enough here - in fact, arguably we're being quite a lot more discriminating here than many sports are. Given the mess at NSPORTS where no changes to the over-arching guideline seems to ever be agreed upon, I'd say this has more chance of getting consensus than any changes to NSPORTS. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Correct, playing in one match in what we deem a notable competition doesn't mean someone is notable. It means that we believe that playing in said match will bring enough significant coverage to pass GNG so that an article can be made on the topic. This is and always has been the basis of SNGs for me. By filtering some of the competitions we're removing cricketers who by playing one match don't got significant coverage, and only get routine coverage in the form of a statistical entry and/or match report. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion has gone a little quiet, how are people feeling about this changes considering what's going on more widely at NSPORTS, and do people feel that we're close to some form of consensus on anything. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose as written - I'm concerned that the OFFCRIC proposal blurs the line between a project-level essay/advice page and the community-approved notability guideline. If the official guideline references OFFCRIC, then OFFCRIC should be treated as part of the guideline. This means that changes would have to be through community consensus with no vetting requirement by project participants. –dlthewave ☎ 15:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

OFFCRIC isn't technically part of the guideline, it's just a list of competitions that the Cricket WikiProject deem to likely lead to presumed notability. Currently all cricket competitions could be decided to be the highest level. It's just an aid in the same way that WP:FPL is to the association football guidelines. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Football has its list of fully professional leagues that it believes does the same thing. This isn't some niche sport where there are such a limited number of leagues that it's possible to include them all in the SNG text. I mean, if you want us to create the longest SNG in history then by all means insist on it. Otherwise, what alternative do you have? Other than simply saying that any FC, LA or T20 player are notable? We're trying to move away from that... Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: The best option would be to promote an agreed-upon version of WP:CRIN to guideline status and include a short summary in NSPORTS. This would eliminate any confusion of what is and isn't part of the guideline. I would support this for any sport-specific guideline that currently has a supplemental advice page. –dlthewave ☎ 15:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW whether this proposal passes or not, the plan is to update CRIN anyway, as it's an absolute mess. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Based on my experience at AfD, I don't think the list of competitions is narrowly tailored enough to assume players covered by this SNG will have met GNG, especially List A competitions. Even Sheffield Shield players don't necessarily receive GNG-qualifying coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: can you suggest some articles that would meet this criteria that you feel aren't able to show notability? Seriously: I'm not convinced that we've not got this down to a fairly decent set leagues here. In terms of Shield cricketers, I took Tim Ward (cricketer) - an April 21 debutante. Easily meets GNG - there are sources beyond those quotes in the article. It's not close. People have shown at AfD recently that historically coverage is pretty reliable as well. I can't quickly find an Australian List A debutant for this season who hasn't played either FC or BBL, but I know very well that sources can be found for any LA debut in County Cricket

Is there a workable alternative to what we have here? Honestly, given the state of NSPORTS I'd say this is the best anyone will get - and if this fails we'll never move on from the "one FC, LA, T20 is enough" mindset. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if opposing this means that nothing changes, then supporting it is the right thing to do. I just want to see more work put in showing that 90%+ and ideally 99% of the people covered by the SNG meet GNG. I'm not sure Tim Ward does meet WP:GNG, as the best coverage of him in a BEFORE search appears primary (Cricket Tasmania/Cricket Australia), though the Mercury is paywalled and he does get mentioned there. I don't really have a problem with including the Shield, but my sense is that cricket has a "short tail" for player notability, where individual players, especially players who only make a few appearances or players in not-top-tier competitions, don't necessarily receive GNG-qualifying coverage, but the popular cricketers receive heaps. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't think we'll get a better compromise that a range of people can get behind. It's usable. The alternative is either stay as we are or ditch any guidance and rely just on the GNG - and that opens the floodgates for second XI, under 19, school children and so on... Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe the second XI/U19/school children will be an issue as there are bits of the project which would clearly exclude those, but it might create the problem of users claiming the GNG is satisfied on really crappy coverage (as seen at a couple recent AfDs, claiming that a statistical blurb is GNG-qualifying coverage.) My preference would be a discussion sampling random players from each competition and basically running BEFORE searches to see if they pass GNG, especially on players with 1/5/10/20 matches played, which would admittedly take some work. SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I spent a few weeks working through a list of cricketers from one English county in December/January as part of one of the discussions at NSPORTS. It showed what you'd expect - but, given some of the rubbish I've seen with keep votes at AfD, I'd be happy that all of them at least marginally meet a suitable level of sourcing. Some of them aren't great, but they're all OK - i.e. go beyond the stats listings, even if a handful might be limited in how far they can go at present. We already struggle with under 19 articles at times, as does football I know. I could write one, with decent sourcing, now for a player with no senior appearances and could have done so for Nathan Gilchrist before he made his debut - plenty of sources, but what had he done that was actually notable at that stage? The Hugh Bernard article existed for ages before he made his senior debut as well - was his under 19 international career notable? ur guidelines say no, but I could have argued GNG says yes... Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. First of all, I support the suggested changes for the most part; however, I am concerned this RfC will be interpreted as acceptance that the criteria still present are sufficient predictors of GNG. I can foresee problems where people point to it as evidence that the community has analyzed the surviving criteria and judged it satisfactory, when what I think many of us are !voting on is the reduction in which leagues/tournaments meet SNG and not specific endorsement of those that remain. Basically, I share @SportingFlyer:'s concern that these rules of thumb, while better, may still not go far enough in accurately predicting GNG. I would also strongly request changes to the guidance include more explicit acknowledgement that meeting NCRIC does not suffice at AfDs if GNG SIGCOV can't be found. This would better reflect NSPORT's explicit instruction (best described in FAQs 1, 2, and 5) and greatly alleviate the confusion evident in many AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The reduction is based on the evidence that's come out of a whole pile of AfD over a period of time - at least five years. People who played in these tournaments tend to survive AfD.

The point re: GNG applies to anything that has NSPORTS as it's parent - so that's every sports SNG. There's no need to include it in just one SNG - it either has to be explicitly included in all or can be considered to be directly inherited from the parent. I've been making the argument for years at AfD and have been told I'm talking rubbish a number of times. I don't recall too many people rebutting that along the way... Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind making it explicit: in my experience it's not completely understood that NSPORTS is a SNG which ultimately is tailored to the GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In which case it needs to be explicit in all of them, not just CRIC. That needs to happen through NSPORTS I think - and I'm not sure that anyone there can agree on anything like this... Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In cricket AfDs at the moment NCRIC is not being used as an acceptable reason for keeping the article in the majority of AfDs (some are still using it but it's mostly ignored), most of the time GNG is just being used. This differs from other AfDs such as Football or Olympics I've seen where saying "passes NFOOTY or NOLY" is fine for keeping an article kept. On some AfDs we've seen where there have multiple appearances keeping has been suggested on the likeliness of sources existing offline which again I don't think is just saying passes the SNG. My proposal also doesn't have to be the only change to the cricket guidelines to occur, it's just for improving it now, it can continue to be improved over the coming months and years, this could just be the first step. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As it stands WP:NCRIC is a terrible predictor of the article having sufficient coverage to meet GNG and potentially actually build a real article out of it. My first choice is deprecate the guideline entirely and my second choice is any change that would tighten it. Like JoelleJay, "I would also strongly request changes to the guidance include more explicit acknowledgement that meeting NCRIC does not suffice at AfDs if GNG SIGCOV can't be found." This comment should not be interpreted as granting any support to NCRIC guideline existing or being trotted out at AfD in any form. (t · c) buidhe 07:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Depreciating the SNG will likely never be accepted by the members on here due to the effect it will have on articles of historic players and players from Asia. We're trying to tighten the guidelines here but people just seem committed to filibuster. I've also mentioned some stuff on using NCRIC at AfD in my comments above. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Given that there's been no support for depreciating anything at NSPORTS, I don't think that's likely. I mean, if you can build support for it then go ahead. You might want to think about curling as well - are you telling me that one appearance as an alternate at the Brier in the 20s is a certainty for sources? Then we can start on every other one.

I'm quite happy to include what's always been in CRIN and may, once upon a time, have been in NCRIC:

"Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. But, the terms of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG are binding and these must be quoted if difficulty arises in an AfD discussion."

That could use tweakage, but it says what's important. As I've said above (in the green box) I think this should be more prominent. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I also wouldn't mind deprecating the old WP:NCRIC and allow it to be replaced with something better if this doesn't get up. Sports biographies are supposed to meet WP:GNG anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPORTSPERSON would presumably be the way to go. Now if only we had a list of "major amateur or professional competitions"... Fwiw the list we're proposing doesn't include anywhere near all the competitions that it could - as of now it excludes the Ranji Trophy, for instance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Deprecating for now I'd likely imagine would mean deprecating altogether given how all other attempts to change the cricket guidelines have gone. I feel this is the closest we've got so far to changing them and the changes would be for the good. If there's still issues with non-notable creations then we can continue to tighten them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - I don't think we'll get another option that has a chance of getting agreement. It's either this, what we have now or rely on WP:SPORTSPERSON without a list of competitions - which means that at every single AfD we can make the argument about whether this is or isn't a major competition depending on which definition someone puts forward, as well as what exactly GNG means this week. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is there this reluctance to explicitly clarify this SSG's relationship to GNG? The wording in CRIN, alongside being out of date, does nothing to disabuse editors of the misconception meeting NCRIC is a valid AfD argument. JoelleJay (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ per sportingflyer.4meter4 (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: Can I get your views on which tournaments listed you feel aren't notable, can perhaps work on removing some more that way. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me give it some thought, and I will get back to you. The issue I see here overall, is that this proposal isn't really addressing the problem; which is simply that the SNG doesn't match GNG. Rather than having a lengthy list of complex guidelines that is really just designed to to continue ignoring GNG, it would be much better to have a simple clearcut guideline to support GNG. I'm not seeing how this proposal solves anything. 4meter4 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

4meter4 Ok thanks, I disagree with your view and feel this list of competitions are well aligned to GNG. Certainly all the AfDs we're seeing are players that have played in competitions that have been removed. The NCRIC guideline in itself is quite short and precise, the list of competitions is just an aid in the same way that WP:FPL is to the football guidelines. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Support as this is progress in the right direction, even if its not a perfect solution.4meter4 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. 4meter4 and SportingFlyer who are you both? You've never concerned yourselves with this project in the past and I don't see either of you here, I'd imagine the tournaments you're commenting on you have limited knowledge about, and the question I want to ask, is when this is all over will you be contributing to this project? If the answer is no, then this doesn't concern you. StickyWicket (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

How about you check your attitude. This is an open RFC relating to WP:NSPORTS, a wikipedia policy guideline, and not a WikiProject specific discussion. WP:OWN would seem to apply. Frankly, I don't think this proposal should have been made here per WP:DISCUSSFORK; because it feels like an extension of another ongoing earlier RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports); a fact which I chose not to bring up earlier because I chose to assume good faith. But based on your comment, it's starting to feel more like forum shopping. This discussion matters to me because I work regularly at AFD, and frequently review cricket related articles; thereby making notability policy pertinent to my contributions.4meter4 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

My plan was to get consensus amongst the WikiProject for changes first, before then taking it to NSPORTS, as I've previously done with a rugby proposal, albeit on a much smaller scale. I thought by getting a good idea from regular cricket editors would help as it is most important to them and they should have the biggest say as they will be the ones most effected by a change. I started the RfC to try and get the views of more cricket editors who don't regularly comment on the project, but another user then linked to NSPORTS. Many of the comments on NSPORTS though do state approval of the cricket guidelines being improved, and we're at least being constructive, whereas other SNGs that people feel are loose such as NOLY aren't doing anything as of yet. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I AGF with your intentions for this RFC, Rugbyfan22. I figured that was what you intended. However, I will point out to you that this is a policy based RFC, which means it is being broadcast at multiple place like the WP:Village Pump, to draw editors to this discussion. If you are going to start an RFC, than realize you are asking for broad input and not just one internal to the WikiProject. RFCs are designed on purpose for Wikipedia wide participation and not a niche collective of editors like a WikiProject. Your WikiProject members should be courteous to outside editors commenting here, because this is an RFC. In future, I would suggest not starting the RFC until after your project has internally discussed and crafted an RFC proposal together to bring to RFC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to be a member of a specific WikiProject in order to contribute to the project as a whole, and I do have a solid understanding of cricket, thanks. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

We've made way more progress toward a compromise here than has been made over the last year+ whenever this has come up at NSPORTS. I'm very happy to have other people come here and make practical suggestions. Please do - everyone. When people do come here I'd rather they don't just tell us they don't like it though. Tell us what the heck they want in terms of a compromise. Not an extreme position (get rid of all SNGS/every player in the sport I like is notable) - that's not helpful. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I would like to see some more practical movement on sourcing requirements, even if its just requiring one source where the player is the main subject (and not just a statistical database or a mention(s) in a game review(s), but an actual prose source about the player). That's two less than we require for GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: So, would a brief obituary in Wisden suffice in your view? As an example. Here's the 1974 edition's obits - those chaps would all have played very much pre-internet, most of them pre-WW2. If all we had was CricInfo, CricketArchive, scorecards from The Times etc... plus an obit from there, is that enough as a bare minimum to suggest that there's likely to be more written about them (in club blue books, annuals and so on as well as in the more local press that's difficult to access online - if you look at the book about Kent in 1913, for example, that quotes extensively regional newspapers, but those are likely to only be reliably accessible from physical archives). Or how about the profiles Nottinghamshire have online as another example? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As long as the obit is compiled by a news source, and not paid for by the family, then I think it could count towards that requirement. But I'm not sure how other editors would feel.4meter4 (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Wisden obituaries are certainly independent of the family and no one pays for them. They're an important part of Wisden's records I'd say. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Any other opinions?

Partly to prevent this discussion from getting archived: does anyone else have an opinion about the general direction of these proposals? Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Specifically from those voting oppose it would be nice to know:

1. What competitions listed at my draft version do you feel are still non-notable?

2. What other options do you think would work, that would gain the support of the cricket WikiProject? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I am permitting my comment above to be interpreted as support if whoever closes this acknowledges in their close statement the strong reservations several of us have voiced that the remaining criteria may still be deficient in predicting GNG. My support is exclusively for tightening the guideline, which is always a step in the right direction, and should not be considered endorsement of the size or quality of that step. I would urge Tvx1, dlthewave, SportingFlyer, buidhe, and 4meter4 to reconsider their votes with this in mind, since the alternative is continuing with the same awful NCRIC criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

My view was always that this change was likely to be a first step anyway, see how it works, and then continue to make changes if the SNG is still considered not strong enough, so thanks for your comment JoelleJay. One of the big issues was stub creation with just sources to Cricinfo, but I see now that Lugnuts is trying to add other GNG passing sources to his creations so they aren't just database sources, so this is already an improvement on that part. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

My biggest concern stays the same: that large groups of players will technically pass NCRIC but fail GNG as we're seeing at AfD. I don't mind the proposal compared to what we have now, but I do think there needs to be more of a de-coupling of the status of the match from whether there's been coverage - as I've noted at a couple recent AfDs, the amount of sourcing demonstrating notability for players who played even a few games in the County Championship is really low, at least online in secondary sources, and a lot of players being kept are on the assumption that sources we haven't found exist. Again I'm not really sure what the solution is apart from doing the work to show if a competition meets a 90-95% mark for GNG, but considering you think this is a first step, I'd support if we did the work to make sure each competition passes GNG. I wonder if there's even scope for a lesser category, too: since sports SNGs are meant to predict GNG, but also guide editors unfamiliar with GNG on what sorts of articles are acceptable, perhaps there's room for a "likely notable" category, where a league may not meet say the 90% mark, but where the best players will clearly be written about. The phrasing would be something like The players in the following competitions are "presumed notable," since they have played in a competition where almost every player receives independent secondary coverage per the WP:GNG. The players in the following competitions are "likely notable," since they have played in a competition where many, but not all, players receive independent secondary coverage per the WP:GNG. When creating articles for players in these competitions, it is strongly suggested to include sources which demonstrate the WP:GNG is passed (for instance, newspaper articles which significantly cover the player.) Again, I'm drafting as I go, but that draft is a suggestion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer As I've said before, 90-95% of those articles at AfD currently would fail the updated guidelines. As you say there have been a couple that would still be in the updated guidelines that we've struggled finding online sources on, but we've tried to improve access to offline sources recently thanks to the work of both StickyWicket and Storm, and on some of them found sourcing through Wisden. The later points you make on "likely notability" is potentially something that could be including in the updated CRIN which is to be worked on if these guidelines go through, and Blue Square Thing and myself have made a start on improving that also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Anymore views, or I'll perhaps look into trying to find someone neutral to close this? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- No objection to closure. But I'll add a bit anyway. Caveated in advance, this line of thought isn't really original to me, just remember reading it a long time ago, actually I think it was a conversation on meta IIRC.
  So the notability guidelines are primarily to help us apply polices in practice especially WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NOTDIR. Without reliable sources to support an article we can't be sure the content is verifiable, without independent sources we can't be sure that it's neutral, and without in-depth coverage we can't be sure we're not acting as a directory. So where does that leave us?
  Speaking in general terms to avoid any controversy about Cricket notability specifically, with many athletes even from long-ago we can trivially find a statistical overview of their career and very likely some general biographical details. Often however it's a struggle, especially as you go further back to satisfy the in-depth part, especially as applies to details outside of their sporting career. Now in general I think V and N can be satisfied, statistical career overviews tend to be neutral and banal with the numbers and career moves easily sourced. But what about NOTDIR? that's trickier even knowing of the existence of an athlete from ancient times is probably enough to warrant a separate article even if we know essentially nothing about the individual in question. What about early modern though? Should every player on the oldest professional team in a sport that we have solid records of be accorded a separate article? At what point are readers better served by lists and redirects than by separate articles per WP:NOPAGE? I don't have any ready answers here, and I suspect no one else does either which is why we've arrived at this meatball:CommunityDoesNotAgree situation.
  Like I said this line of thought is not original to me, but I thought it might be useful to others if I passed it along. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I've requested that someone uninvolved in the discussion, and who wasn't majorly involved in the NSPORTS discussions close this now the RfC period has ended. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I have come rather to late to the discussion and the thread is way too long to read, understand and comment. Is there summary that we can add, and then can comment on !?

I may be beating a dead snake by commenting here now, but looking at the rugbyfan22's proposal, any restriction of tournaments for first class cricket should only be for the recent past. If we take India before 1970, for eg, there are way too many random tournaments and matches that any new definition or restriction can let matches of importance slip through the net. For these "old" matches, people who are more knowledgeable than us have done the work and classified them as first class, and that should be the criterion (the definition of "old" could be different for different countries). Tintin 05:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment to stop archiving. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Many thanks for closing Eggishorn, I'll look to implement these proposals over the next week when I have the time. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate:, have updated WP:NCRIC now, do you want to add it to the section you've get set out on the Project home page? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure will do! StickyWicket (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

University/tour cricket

I've asked a question about the status of 1st class University matches and tour matches om Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Official cricket. As that page doesn't seem to be very active, I've added a notification here.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I've just updated the guidelines today following my proposal. University matches now no longer have FC status, previously when they did we were finding that one FC appearance in a university match under the majority of circumstances wasn't enough to gain significant coverage for GNG, therefore it's been removed from the guidelines. In terms of the earlier matches they weren't really under any real competition structure (apart from the Varsity matches obviously) and there will likely be something to cover this when WP:CRIN is updated, which I'll get to at some point. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added comments on the other talk page, but did take a quick look at some of the MCCU/UCCE pages. They could really use a bit of an update, preferably from someone who understands exactly what happened to their various statuses and when - especially with regard to funding (I know that's an ask!). I did remove Sam Billings as the Loughborough captain however... Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd realised that our articles on the various university sides that previously had f-c status for some of their matches now need updating, but I'm afraid that so far idleness has prevailed. Maybe some day I'll get around to it, but if in the meanti9me someone would like to do it I'd be grateful. JH (talk page) 15:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that it's not going to be a high priority for anyone very much! The ins and outs of who ran it and who funded it etc... are just so bloody complicated. If it gets done then great, if not it's shruggable really. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the early varsity matches were historically notable and featured many players who would go onto have prominent careers both in cricket and other fields. Certainly until around WWII they were still high quality matches, but particularly from the 1970s onwards the quality did drop off markedly. It would, given the historical notability of Oxford and Cambridge be nice to see some major expansion on both clubs articles and a push for at least one GA? StickyWicket (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Emptying cricket categories

Over past few weeks, many cricket categories have become empty and been deleted. They mostly involve cricket during years in the 19th century in England. You can see recent examples on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories and in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion.

I just thought I'd check in and make sure that they aren't being emptied out-of-process. It's very unusual for so many categories on the same subject to become emptied simultaneously unless an editor has started some reorganization or recategorization project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, now the empty cricket categories will all show up in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion until they are deleted next week. I checked my CSD log and can see that these empty cricket categories started showing up in early May so it's been going on for a while. But if WikiProject Cricket isn't interested, I guess there is no problem with deleting them when the appropriate time comes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to see what articles where previously in the category? Then we could see whether the articles were deleted, recategorised, or something else. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's primrily articles in the series 1853 English cricket season, for example. There was discussion about this a while back at Talk:History of cricket (1726–1771). The cats probably only had those articles in anyway for the most part. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep. See Talk:History of cricket (1726–1771)#Merger proposal and Talk:History of English cricket (1816–1863). JH (talk page) 13:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no permanent list of what a category once contained. This can be a problem when an editor de-populates a category or categories. The only solution I know of is to try to remember one article that was once in a now empty category and look over the edit history to see which editor removed it from the category. Then, if you go to that editor's contribution history, you can see whether this was a one time edit or is part of a process of emptying out categories out-of-process. This goes against accepted practice of categorization on Wikipedia but, unfortunately, is not uncommon even among experienced editors who try to bypass the Categories for Discussion process where categories are renamed, deleted or merged by consensus decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

t20 Blast page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Leslie Gooden

Can someone with access to cricket archive please look at Leslie Gooden (He might be found under Norman Leslie Gooden) for any other matches listed besides his two fc matches? Even though he scored a century for South Australia on fc debut, he played only one more fc match before becoming a missionary in India. You would think a chap with a fc batting average of 65 might play some cricket in India or (elsewhere) but I've only found references to him dominating Adelaide club cricket in the lead up to his fc debut.

There's also a fair number of South Australian cricketing Gooden's from roughly the same time so surely there's a family link somewhere, so any other info listed in cricket archive would be gratefully accepted. Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Roisterer: I haven't yet subscribed to CricketArchive but I am able to view the site without subscription. If you can stop the site before the paywall loads, then you can see what is in the page. Thanks. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 07:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It only has him playing one other match - for SA colts in Feb 1914 against Victoria colts. Nothing in India - doesn't mean he didn't play of course. Did he enlist in WW1? Be nice to get a couple of dates in the article fwiw - when did he start mission work, for example? Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sammyrice: - are you able to find more info on this guy? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

200 Chennai Super Kings–Mumbai Indians rivalry 24,132 778 Unknown Low
54 Jay Mehta 53,413 1,723 Stub Low
57 Arzan Nagwaswalla 51,531 1,662 Stub Low
74 2021 Caribbean Premier League 47,031 1,517 Stub Mid
86 2023 Cricket World Cup 43,972 1,418 Stub Mid
94 Bio-secure bubble 40,581 1,309 Stub Low
111 India national under-19 cricket team 37,524 1,210 Stub Mid
136 Aakash Chopra 32,310 1,042 Stub Mid
158 Devdutt Padikkal 29,006 935 Stub Low
169 Ashoke Dinda 27,208 877 Stub Mid

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Popular pages

Reassessed Bio-secure bubble, Padikkal, Dinda to start class, Chopra to C-class. All have enough references and enough prose length to satisfy the assessment.--Chanaka L (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CRIN

Following the passing of my proposals, I've updated all the sections as stated in the RfC. CRIN obviously needs more work. I've implemented what's stated in the proposal, but also started on a potential draft for it here. I know @Blue Square Thing: was working on it as well, but it really needs a full re-write as most of it is confusing, unnecessary and has undue weight towards specific eras of cricket. Any other views on it would be great. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Though on official cricket, I would argue FC/LA/T20 leagues in Afghanistan and Ireland, given the recentism of their elevation to those statuses, are notable. Especially Ireland, plenty of coverage in Irish and UK sources for those leagues. StickyWicket (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

In the proposal there was objections to both due to there not being enough coverage of some of the lower players in the competition, so I haven't added them for now, they can be revisited in the future though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering what the purposes of #2 and #3 are. I'm not sure anyone playing for an associate would have a notability presumption unless they play in a World Cup, for instance. What's the rationale for not simplifying this further to: Have appeared as a player in at least one cricket match that is judged to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. Umpires are presumed notable if they've been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires ~~or meet another of the above points~~. (I've struck the part which doesn't make contextual sense instead of removing it.) I might also make an addendum to the first line mentioning that "highest" implies the player will have received coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree, although I do think that two bullet points is clearer (maybe even a) and b) so that we can simplify how we refer to them???). I think we could say something like See the agreed list of top-level international and domestic competitions compiled by the Cricket Wikiproject or something. This mirrors what Football do and means that it's clearer where the hyperlink goes to. It might save a tiny bit of aggro at an AfD or something.

On the "other people who are probably notable" bit, I had something like: Other cricketers may be notable if they have appeared in an official first-class, List A or Twenty20 match outside of one of the competitions listed if in-depth sources exist such that they can be shown to meet the General Notability Guideline. Other cricket figures, including administrators, coaches, writers, broadcasters and historians may be suitable subjects for articles if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. which I'm not 100% sure about at all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

When we looked for coverage on players from Ireland, it just wasn't there in many cases - the competition and matches, yes, although not strongly. If there's coverage, then it's fine - the GNG fallback always applies of course. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think there's more coverage on Ireland domestic cricket and/or players than there was a few years ago, although it is by a case-by-case basis for individuals. Always good sources from Cricket Europe and the Belfast Telegraph to name just a couple of sources. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the increase is likely. Maybe there is/will be a but off date. I know when I was looking I was probably focussing on what I would consider more marginal cases - early matches, only played a handful at most etc... Those chaps were generally obvious club or academy cricketers who were getting a game but weren't really at top-class first-class standard. If that makes sense. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22: and @AssociateAffiliate: None of the Bangladeshi domestic competitions are included here. It is true that about National Cricket League and Dhaka Premier League, there are very less coverage since 2000/01 (when the tournament was founded). But since the past 2-3 years, there seems to be much coverage about these tournaments. So, I think at least from the 2017-18 to present seasons of those tournaments should be included in OFFCRIC. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There's likely coverage of the tournament yes, but there needs to be significant coverage on the players playing in the competition, and not just the better known players. It was deemed there wasn't coverage of Bangladeshi domestic players, but I doubt anybody researched into Bangladeshi sources deeply. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@A.A Prinon: Part of the problem is getting access to sources - and then being able to read them when they're non-English ones. If there were a sample of, say, 10-20 cricketers who you think might meet notability from the period you're talking about, I'd be interested to see them.

Just a few notes on the Women's Domestic Cricket section:

1) Women's National Cricket League - As far as I can tell it was agreed (by the few people that discussed it) here that the WNCL back to the 2015/16 season would be included as conferring notability - this has effectively been the case up until now, with pages being made when players make their debut in the competition in recent seasons as there's usually enough coverage.

2) Obviously the Women's Regional T20 hasn't started yet but assuming that will be added when it does (26 June), as it is equal with the RHFT - just checking because it often gets forgotten in comparison to the RHFT!

3) Minor point, but the Women's Twenty20 Cup is still going, as of 2021, despite being listed as 2009–2019.

Thanks for all your hard work on this, good to get some clear guidelines. Mpk662 (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mpk662:, Thanks for these, I'll update points 1 and 2, when the Regional T20 starts it'll likely be added (same with the Hundred). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Another women's one: Women's Super50 Cup (West Indies). Not sure whether it should be in the notable or not section, at a glance I would guess no. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah there are plenty of women's domestic comps from around the world that aren't on the page, I can put together a list if needed but I don't think any of them will be in the notable section Mpk662 (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Will add this one, think I used a template/wiki page to find the ones I've found, obviously likely missing ones. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22: "...it'll likely be added (same with the Hundred)"... please spare us :D!!! StickyWicket (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I know, sort of hoping COVID restrictions may can it for another year! I see their including the statistics from it under T20 statistics just to spite us further! Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

List made on my sandbox here. Feel free to use/correct/add to. No guarantees on accuracy, especially for countries with little to no coverage like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka + Zimbabwe. Can't see any of the tournaments that aren't on the notable list being added any time soon, but still good to have a more comprehensive list if anyone has anything to contribute generally on any of the domestic systems. Mpk662 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mpk662, will take a look when I get the time. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Have now added these. Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

There's been a lot of discussion on WP:OFFCRIC here, but not much on updating WP:CRIN. Anybody got any views on that that haven't been mentioned so far. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Inquest request

Hi all. Would anyone with access to the BNA be able to see what this inquest says about the suicide of John Turner? Thanks in advance. StickyWicket (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems fairly straightforward. Self-inflicted gunshot wound to the forehead; history of depression and had previously been in a mental hospital; got up in the morning and went to his "dressing-room", and was found dead (by his wife) 15 minutes later; jury returned verdict of suicide while of unsound mind, as directed by coroner. Johnlp (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Johnlp, much appreciated. I wonder if we need a Category:Cricketers who committed suicide? StickyWicket (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Rob Keogh

Hi. Silly Sunday question - how is Rob Keogh's surname pronounced? The same as Rob Key?! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was more like Keyo - think I head that on a recent commentary, but that might be a total lie. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Along the lines of BST, I have always pronounced it as Key-oh :D StickyWicket (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Scottish club categories

Are Category:Players in Scottish domestic cricket by team and its subcats necessary? None of the teams have played first-class or equivalent levels, so playing for these teams doesn't contribute to a player's notability. Some of the subcats relate to clubs that don't even have their own articles! Jellyman (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jellyman: feel free to CfD them, we don't tend to categorise players by teams that haven't played at first-class or equivalent levels. StickyWicket (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Just because playing for a team doesn't count for a player's implied notability doesn't mean that it can't be a defining characteristic and doesn't mean we need to sweep it under the carpet, or make it harder to find out who played for what teams. Just because we not presuming notability because someone played at a certain club dosen't mean that they cannot be notable (via GNG) for playing for a lower level team. In that case surely it is a defining characteristic and we should be categorising.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. It's not how it has ever been done on this project, we define our player notability largely down to the status that the team they play for holds. That way our categorisation mirrors our notability criteria. If we add club teams it then strays into overcategorisation territory. StickyWicket (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Then you are ignoring GNG, which ultimately should overrule any local rules about presumed notability.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan women's A cricket team in the West Indies in 2021

Hi. Is there a need for this stand-alone article when all the info is already in this one? I've been bold and redirected the former (and an IP editor also did the same), but the page creator does not agree. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say no, as the A team matches are already listed there, and I wouldn't think A team matches would be notable enough to independently pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph. I could understand if the tours were months apart, but it's literally the same teams playing at the same venue (the T20 matches are on the same day)! And that's before as you mention the notability of A team tours, and the small matter of that article being copied verbatim from the first. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

WTC Final

Hi. Following up from a question on my talkpage - the infobox used for the 2019–2021 ICC World Test Championship Final is for a limited overs match. Is there an equivalent/better one to use for a Test match? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The infobox for limited overs final was created so that it can be input on the articles of World Cup finals, Asia Cup finals, Champions Trophy finals or domestic tournaments' final. But it is probably the first time an article about the final match of a Test tournament is being created on Wikipedia. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

We should create a test final one, as the limited overs one only has parameters for one innings. So we should create one that is similar, but has the parameters for two inninngs matches. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there any mileage in adding additional parameters that would only display if completed for the second innings and so on? And then rationalising the infobox as a cricket match one that could be applied wherever needed? Rather than having specialised sub-classes, each with relatively little application. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking along the lines of a bastardisation of the existing infobox to make it all encompasing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Example here using alternate infobox. ~~As BST suggests, would be better to have 1 for general use, can work on merging once design is sorted.~~ In the existing limited overs version, I think the score is far too big in comparison to the country names, and the miniscule {{{rain}}} needs changing. Spike 'em (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of existing Infobox

Whilst we are discussing this, some points on the existing IB, and its use:

(Usage point) Do we really need to list all 5 match officials (2 on-field, TV, reserve, referee)? To me the 2 on-field are worth mentioning, the others not. We don't list any of the players other than PotM, it is excessive to list so many officials. Given this IB seems similar in use to the Football one, usage of that only seems to list the main ref, not the assistants.
As above, the |rain= is excessively small. Should either be readable or done away with.
Should we add a section clearly stating the result / margin? For ODI / T20 games it is usually clear which side won, but in 2-innings games it is not so obvious. There is |details= but it is not widely used from what I can see.
The existing IB automatically adds "overs" at the end of the number of overs if the undocumented |home_overs= / |visitor_overs= are used instead of |team1overs= / |team2overs=. This should either always be done or never. Which would people prefer (always would mean either stripping off any existing "overs" from the supplied param, or editing any invocations that use such text)? My test IB ignores all such params anyway.Spike 'em (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine that most of the articles which feature an infobox like this will probably also feature a scorecard of some kind - either a full table or using a template? In that case, I think we could take a *lot* of the stuff in the infobox out - stuff like the rain and umpires should really go in the scorecard template rather than the ib in my view. Certainly for a multi-day match the rain stuff is likely to be far too long for an infobox.

I'd say the result is much more important. I think I really want to see the teams involved (preferably without any bloody flags), the scores and who won, date, venue and competition. I'll live with player of the match if I have to. I don't think you need the overs - this belongs on the detailed scorecard not on the infobox summary.

The scores are way too big as well fwiw. It looks awfully like the cricket one is a modified version of the football match one (for example, used here. On that the ref is OK as its a single person and the scores make sense to be large as the numbers are rarely going to be bigger than 9. When we then try for 803/3 that's four more characters than the source one used. I suspect this is also why it doesn't show the result currently - it is possible to add that in the details field on a football match one (as in this rather less memorable match) Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the test work on the IB, Spike. I agree with the removal of the rain parameter and the bloat of all the umpires. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the infobox to a more generic name and copied my work over.

I've not included the automatic "overs" text as it needs an AWB task to remove all the included "overs" (or I could look into stripping out at display time, though some usages have things like "(20 overs)", which will need more consideration). Spike 'em (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I've also increased the size of the team names, so not as overwhelmed by the score / flags. There are also more duplicate arguments that I'd like to get rid of, but I can;t remember how to check for their usage! Spike 'em (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 ICC World Test Championship Final

Hi all. The 2021 ICC World Test Championship Final is up for a WP:ITN nom. Any help with copy-editing would be gratefully received. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Consistency in Tournament Format(s) in infobox

In infoboxes for cricket tournaments, we seem to gave an inconsistency in what we're putting for the "Tournament Format(s)": on 2020 Rachael Heyhoe Flint Trophy, we have "Round robin and final" (which isn't correct, as not all teams played each other, so it's not a RR), on 2021 Rachael Heyhoe Flint Trophy, we have "Round robin and knock-out finals", and on 2021 t20 Blast, we have "Group stage and knockout". Our style guide doesn't mention anything about this, but should we look to standardise the format of what we put into these infoboxes? I think "Group stage", "Knockout", "Group stage and final", "Group stage and knockout" would be sufficiently broad to cover all matches? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302, I think that when every teams play each other and if there is directly a final match without any knockout or qualifier in a tournament, then the format should be given as "Round-robin and Final." When it is round-robin, but has a knockout, then it should be- "Round-robin and knockout stage" and when has a qualifier and eliminator, then format should be- "Round-robin and playoffs". Racheal Heyhoe Flint Trophy has incorrect format given, I am going to fix that one. Thanks. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Roy Barratt

This article could use some attention. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for this - did the basics of showing how many matches he played and added his obit. from Wisden. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: Thanks for the message. Well, I have added some references and content and fixed some basic issues. Hope now it appears normal. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 04:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much!4meter4 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Gordon Rowe sources

Hi all. If any of you have time to fix the sources at Gordon Rowe, I'd appreciate it. The first citation mistakenly goes to the entry on Len Butterfield instead of Gordon Rowe. Also it's unclear which entry in Wisden is being cited, so it would be helpful to have the title of the obituary entry added to that reference. The Cricket Archive external link should be removed because it is behind a paywall per WP:LINKSTOAVOID; but an inline citation use is good. My main hope is to have a usable source to add to Deaths in 1995 to confirm his death date on that page on 9 June 1995. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that the Wisden entry isn't an obituary at all, but part of the Overseas Cricket section - the '56 Wisden's "Overseas Cricket" section covers 1954–55 from page 888 to 911 (with New Zealand on pages 905–906), so the '54 Wisden as stated in the cite is the right year for the 53–54 season, and it seems to be in roughly the right place.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Found the obit and both CricInfo and CricketArchive agree on the dates of birth and death. Men in White, which is a classic book on NZ international cricket, may have a touch more detai. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help!4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Roly Jenkins sources

Hi all. Here is another 1995 bio that needs some additional citations. If anyone can locate an obit for Deaths in 1995, I would appreciate it. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The CricInfo source which was already linked at the foot of the infobox (badly as it happens) contains his Wisden obituary. You'll find other Wisden obituaries by browsing individual years at this page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

WACA Ground Centuries

Hi All

I have been looking through the lists of International Cricket Centuries in the various Australian state capitals (Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth) and have noticed that the List_of_international_cricket_centuries_at_the_WACA_Ground page was deleted. This page was deleted along with several others - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_international_cricket_centuries_at_Carisbrook

And previously - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_international_cricket_centuries_at_Dubai_International_Cricket_Stadium

Apparently they were not notable enough, or "that centuries on these grounds are not prestigious enough for a list."

I don't agree with the mass deletion of these statistics, as it forms an integral part of any ground. But today I'm talking about the WACA Ground.

I think this deletion should be undone, as, even though the ground will not be used in the future, was one of the premier Test venues in Australia since the 1970s. The ground itself existed since the 1890s, and I think Test hundreds on this venue are worthy of a page.

DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@DiamondIIIXX: Yes I also disagree with the mass deletion of those statistics. Yes, some of those grounds articles should have been deleted because those are "minor" grounds not enough significant. But even the centuries of national and largest stadiums of some countries which have prestigious records have also been deleted, as example- the centuries at Pallekele stadium. Many of the people opposed their deletion, while Storm and Aff73 basically supported for deletion. About the discussion at Carisbrook, I think the result given by the admin was really disruptive. Because with six votes for delete and seven votes for keep with very complicated rationales, it should have been "no consensus" or a relist would be appropriate.

Still, many articles with the list of centuries and five-wicket hauls exist, with some being of FL status. So, it is always difficult to understand the reason for those deletions. I think if you want to recreate any of those grounds which are at least significant, you may give a descriptive explanatory text in the lead to take it to FL status. Another problem of this project is that many editors disagree with many things but they do not voice their opinions. You should have raised your opinion regarding those lists when the deletion discussion was going on.

However, Storm who had been nominating all of those articles and lists is now retired, who led many others members of this project to be reitred. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 02:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Naming of women's tours

Hi all, first of all to let you know that I've updated the women's cricket section of the open tasks section to (hopefully) include all tour pages that are missing, so if anyone's interested in filling in some deadlinks they are now there.

Secondly, hoping to clear something up re. the naming of tour articles: at the moment women's articles are inconsistent with the name of the touring team, for example whether it should be "England women's cricket team in..." or "English women's cricket team in...", and same with Pakistan/Pakistani, Bangladesh/Bangladeshi and so on. I've checked some men's articles and they seem to all use the nationality (i.e. English, Afghan, West Indian). It seems pretty random at the moment with what gets named what (and I admit some guilt in this with some recent articles I have made!), but overall it seems more recent tours are being made with 'England' rather than 'English' etc, whereas older ones would have English.

So basically just wondering if we could get some consistency in the naming of tour articles from here out. My two cents is that it should just be the team name (England, Australia etc.) because I think that's what a general user is most likely to search for, but I don't really mind either way. What would be nice though is some consistency so any thoughts/debate would be appreciated! Thanks, Mpk662 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The men's teams seem to use English, Australian, Indian etc... New Zealand is the exception because that's an odd one to be possessive about I think, so New Zealand is correct. That would suggest going with the same for the women's teams. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I've wondered for a while whilst we call it "Indian cricket team in England" but "India women's cricket team in England". I would supporting changing to use adjective form to match men's articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Number of teams in the infobox

Hi. I noticed that this edit triggered the "Pages using infobox cricketer with unknown parameters" category, when the 18th team(!) was added to Carlos Brathwaite's infobox. Is it a technical reason preventing more than 17 parameters, or can this be expanded? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe it can be expanded, someone with correct template permissions would need to add parameters for 18th, 19th etc to the code for Template:Infobox cricketer. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

More can be added - I think it was limited to about 12 until a few years ago. But this does tend to lead to massively long lists, especially with franchise leagues - to the extent that the infobox becomes too long for the article really, especially if images are being added. In some cases I think I've removed teams that someone didn't play for in more than one season - which seems to work reasonably. Of course, removing teams players never appeared for is a good starting point as well (I'll have already done that with Braithwaite I think) Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Gayle / Pollard / Bravo etc have been over the limit for years. I don't think there is an obvious limit, and from memory other sports go up to 20 or 30 teams. Spike 'em (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. Thought it was odd to have a technical limit set at 17! I do like the work-around on Gayle's infobox, of grouping teams/years together on one line, where possible. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Lord's

Hi all. This article looks a bit of a mess, so I've made an initial start on the background and early history. It's a bit of a mission to get this up to standard, so if anyone fancies chipping in and helping to sort the article out then that would be fantastic. I think for the 'Home of Cricket' we need a much better article. Also, there's a lot of sub-pages, like Long Room, Lord's honours boards, Father Time (Lord's), Lord's Media Centre, amongst others. I wonder if these should be merged into the article? StickyWicket (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, odd one isn't it. The cricket matches section 2/3rds of the way through the article made me smile - seemed a bit like an after thought. And then there's a Test matches section further down. All a bit disjointed to say the least.

Images need an overhaul - I could do an adaption of the infobox map to add stand names to replace the rather odd stands image. It's a vector image job, but I can manage that if you want it. And stuff like the panorama don't work on screen. Not sure about the sub articles - depends on how long the main article becomes. Not sure about the tables towards the bottom - sort of think the really notable stuff should be there, but not sure tables is the best approach.

Good start btw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

One of the oddest articles I've ever seen! Virtually no history of the ground, just random subsection and randomly placed photos! That subsection also made me chuckle, 200+ years of FC cricket and nearly 140 years of Test cricket and that's what we get, plus another after thought in the 'Test matches at Lord's' section. If you could do the image overhaul that would be brilliant, a vector image job is most definitely beyond me! I think many of them can be merged into the main article, the only one I'd probably have a separate article for is the Lord's Pavilion. Perhaps the records section on the Hampshire article might be a way to go with stats? I've found some sources from Internet Archive, so going to add those. StickyWicket (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this article was OK about 10 years ago if I remember, but it's basically stagnated with too many sub-pages as already mentioned. It definitely just needs a major overhaul, though I think the introduction and infobox are good enough for now (unless someone wants to improve them). I think it's important to source better and higher resolution images, as most of them are just dodgy or unsuitable. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, only just saw your reply AA - I'll see what I can do with the image(s) this week. If I forget, nudge me. Records like on the Rose Bowl are OK by me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe around 2010 it would have been okay. Reminds of the old County Ground, Hove article back in the day. I've made some further expansions this morning. The Lord's Companion is particularly useful as it has lots of accounts from cricketers, patrons and newspapers of the day. The sub-pages definitely need to be mostly merged into the article, maybe the pavilion being an exception? I'll do the intro last once all the other sections are added, and remove any references from that section also. I have some images from England v Ireland Test which might be okay, they're high resolution and with blue sky the ground looked great! Thanks Blue Square Thing, hopefully by the end of the year have this in a place for a GA push, hopefully being the word!!! StickyWicket (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

PS: I'm trying to rack my brains about what to call the next section after 'Early history'. Any ideas? The next big development is the arrival of Test cricket, though is that too generic a section title along those lines? StickyWicket (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Something like Development of the ground? Or just have it under History and then add a subhead later? I've not looked at the article when I've suggested either of those mind you... Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest simply "Subsequent history". Given that two Tests had already been played at The Oval before the first one at Lord's in 1884, I don't think that anything referring to Test cricket would be very appropriate as a subheading.

Thanks for the suggestions, I've gone for 'Continued Developments'. StickyWicket (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Map done and inserted - the labels keep on bloody well moving around when it's uploaded which is a bit crap, but it's OK I think. I've edited bits of the Stands section - I think I got the details right but this Times source is behind their paywall, so someone with access to it might want to double check. Unless anyone knows when the Compton and Edrich Stands were actually finished? I'll wait on other images until you have more of the text sorted - but the ones you describe may be a good choice. I'm sure there are better images than some of the ones in the article right now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: Thanks for that, it looks really good. I'm trying to figure out how to get an 1841 drawing that's on Commons onto the 'Early history' section, but the page infobox shunts it down into an unrelated section. I've made a few more edits and I'm as far as the 1890s, please let me know what you think! The source I'm using goes to the 1950s I think, so should get some more stand info as I read. StickyWicket (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a massive editor of cricket articles but I do keep an eye here for anything interesting, and I might be able to chip in a bit on Lord's. I've got both volumes of the history of the ground from 1787 to 1970 and another book written by Geoffrey Moorhouse in the 1980s, so could add bits based on those. Also happy to take a look for anything specific that anyone might be looking for in those. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bcp67: any additions you could make using your collection would be brilliant. Especially around the early years and the inter-war years, for which the sources I am using are a little threadbare. StickyWicket (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added the books into the bibliography for use when I'm ready. On the subject of references, there are a lot of citations to "Benny 2010", but nothing listed in the bibliography which seems to tie in with those refs, would you have any idea what it's supposed to be? --Bcp67 (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bcp67: Ah I've added my book reference for "Benny 2010" straight into the references section as The Lord's Companion – I need to reorder a couple of those references too. It's starting to look like a much better article already. So far I'm concentrating on the development of the ground, before later adding matches/events of note to fill in the pieces. StickyWicket (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone has been to Lord's in the last few weeks and has any pictures of the new Compton and Edrich stands? StickyWicket (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I drive past it quite often, but not been inside since l*ckd*wn started. Surrey aren't due to play there again this season, so unless I debase myself by watching the tournament that shall not be named it'll have to be someone else! Spike 'em (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh you don't want to be debasing yourself to watch that whose name shall not be mentioned :DDD StickyWicket (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Could be worse - he could be choosing to watch Surrey... Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Progress

How is it looking so far? Anything you want added to the history section (which isn't quite finished), or anything blindly obvious I have missed? I'll make a start on the sections below 'history' soon. StickyWicket (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

NS? NSJ?

In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vallabharebel, many of the sock names have "ns", "jns", or "nsj" in them. Much of the editing is on cricket-related (specifically, Indian cricket) articles. Is there some significance to the "ns" theme in the cricket world? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: nothing is shouting out to me, I'm trying to think of any cricketers with those initials and can't think of any. It's also not a technical abbreviation either. StickyWicket (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing obvious to this (English) cricket fan either. I thought they were more likely a semi-random splurge of characters Spike 'em (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: you might be better off asking at the Indian Premier League project just in case. Although, given the editors history, one or more of those is bound to be a misspelling... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

ICC Trophies

Hey guys just wanted to check a few things with you. First of all in the International Cricket page, under the leaderbord of teams who have won ICC trophies, what is the exact criteria to rank teams with the same no. of trophies? I've ranked them for now based on who has played in more finals(for example, both Sri Lanka and Pakistan have 3 trophies, but Sri Lanka have played in 7 finals overall compared to Pakistan's 5. Hence I've put Sri Lanka above Pakistan), but wanted to make sure if that was okay. Also, in the wiki pages of the national cricket teams, only their appearances and performances in the WTC, ODI WC and T20I WC are listed(inside the box thingy right at the start of the pages). Shouldn't the Champions Trophy be included too, atleast for the 8 major teams with ICC trophies? Please let me know what you guys think. Samudragupta007 (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Temba Bavuma

Hi. Is this sentence really needed at this article- He is also the first black South African cricket captain.? — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 05:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead so that it flows better - it now says it but as an extension of the sentence about him being the first black South African to score a Test century, which in turn flows from the first sentence. I think it probably is something that's important to say about him. Does anyone have a handy source for his height btw? Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for it, BST. I now agree that being first black SA cricket captain to score a Test century is not actually trivial. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 06:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Steve Smith (cricketer)

I've done quite a bit of work on this article, and was wondering if someone could give it a look over with fresh eyes to see if there are any glaring problems; and if the article meets FA class, or if there is more to be done to meet FA.

Looking forward to responses. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ollie Pope

Hi guys, do we think Ollie Pope should be listed in the batsman or wicket-keepers section on Surrey's squad list? I'd say now that he should be listed as a batsman as he doesn't keep for England and hasn't kept for Surrey recently (and is now third choice anyway), however another user sees it differently. Surrey's website still states he's a wicket keeper, although the text on his page states he's a batsman. What do people think? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say he is no more than an occasional keeper, and would personally list him as a batsman. What do sources other than Surrey (which could be considered a primary / self source) say? Spike 'em (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Also the Surrey squad page wicket-keeper section only has Foakes and Smith, and has Pope in the Batsmen section, so if we are using that as a source, then he is a batsman. Spike 'em (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

My bigger, general question would be why do we split the tables between batsman, wicket-keepers, all-rounders and bowlers? Lots of these choices seem arbitrary (e.g. on the Sussex one, George Garton and Will Beer are listed as all-rounders, when I'd consider them both as bowlers). Also, having headings in the middle of a table violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table, as it can cause accessability issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should list them with no headings, just in squad number order, noting perhaps if they're a wicket-keeper. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be preferable to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Would mean having to change almost every squad list on team pages as I think almost every team uses a list like this. I remember someone on here was also against sorting by squad number, but I can't think of another way to sort other than alphabetical. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Done what the proposals would look like if listed by 1) squad number or 2) alphabetical on my sandbox using Hampshire's squad as an example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that the current table formatting style (i.e. the role headers) creates potential accessibility issues. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it's best if they're removed from all squad lists then. Personally I prefer sorting by squad number (such as in football) than by alphabetical, especially now squad numbers are more and more prominent in both domestic and international cricket. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand the above points about arbitrary/accessibility issues with the headers, but I still think that player categorisation needs to be maintained to some extent - it really is a key thing for a squad list to have in my opinion, to help a reader follow/understand a team, and just for the comprehension of the table, rather than it being a block of text. Perhaps as a compromise player role could be a new header, say next to squad number, in a similar way to football squads that list GK/DF/MF/ST? Just would be a shame to lose what is a pretty vital piece of information - perhaps the columns could also be sortable, so a user could still have players listed by role, as well as alphabetical/squad number (which I think should be possible)? Oh and also, even if nothing changes, should the categorisation for both genders be 'batter' (reflecting changes by sites like Cricinfo) rather than the current mixed use of 'batsmen' for men and 'batter' for women? Mpk662 (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A fair point, DoB could easily be removed from the tables, I'm not sure it's a vital piece of information or something the reader would particularly be looking for. I think everything else is sort of needed, although nationality could easily just be reduced to a flag. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't think anything necessarily needs to be removed - here's my attempt with roles + sortable columns. It's slightly more clunky to put together than the previous template, but may solve some of the issues raised. Or not, feedback needed! Mpk662 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That's quite good tbf. Obviously you're still going to have the discussion of what/who fits into what bracket as with Pope and the couple Joseph2302 has suggested. Is readability acceptable for a table like that on mobile devices though? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I've given up on trying to count the colons! I think the categorisation by type of player is useful. Within categories, I'd prefer sorting to be alphabetical rather than by squad number. If I'm trying to find a player in a squad list, I'm far more likely to know his name than his squad number. Also a player's squad number might conceivably change from one season to the next, whereas hopefully his last name won't! JH (talk page) 15:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: Except there's an inconsistency on Surrey's part - hovering over Pope gives "WICKET KEEPER" and clicking on him [1] very clearly states wicket keeper. Remember, WP guideline is verifiability, not truth, and as a Surrey fan it's not like he's not keeping by choice (like Steven Davies a few years ago), it's that Foakes is ahead of him. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit: And to answer your second question, Cricinfo gives Wicket Keeper [2] and by contrast, Rory Burns is given as "occasional wicketkeeper". Spa-Franks (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say Pope's behind Smith as well, given in the few T20s he played this year Smith kept wicket while Pope played as a batsman. It's a contentious issue which would include a number of players (Phil Salt, David Bedingham, Alex Davies, Ben Duckett to name a few). I just feel that most people would see Pope on TV or elsewhere as a batsman currently (as I'm not sure the last time he kept wicket domestically was) so listed him there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Pope would have kept instead of Smith had it not been for a thigh problem. To answer your question, the last time he kept was the NZ Test Match in late 2019; Covid and injury has got in the way. The point is you have to go via sources, not via what has actually happened. Insofar as Cricinfo is concerned: Salt is a batsman; Bedingham, Davies, Duckett are keepers outright. I have just come out of a very difficult RFC at RuPaul's Drag Race UK (Series 2), where the guidelines were made crystal clear. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Salt has kept in every T20 for Sussex this year, and the majority if not all the T20s for Sussex last year, while Duckett kept for the first time in maybe 2 years in the past couple of games (because of injury). I'm not sure what the Drag Race guidelines specific were, but there can be local consensus for difference if needs be. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Salt is a wicket-keeper, but only in T20s. I think we should follow e.g. Cricinfo or CricketArchive, but for Salt, it does seem like Cricinfo is questionable. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to go round changing to what it states on club websites, but often they are out of date, have club bias or don't take into account current events. For example Hampshire list most of their bowlers as all-rounders and regular bowlers as just batsman. Some teams don't list position on the squad pages either, and given Cricinfo tends to be even worse for positioning for domestic players, is why I say it's a contentious issue. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Therefore Salt can be given the label of "occasional wicketkeeper" if need be, but I'm not hearing anything that's disproving WP:NOTTRUTH and the entire arguments rely on subjective viewpoints? Furthermore, teams can (and have) played fast and loose with T20 keeping. One game I remember of the top of my head is this game where Sangakkara kept in front of Pope - ostensibly because Pope is the better outfielder, which is more important in T20 cricket - so does not prove anything either way. I believe it was the only time Sangakkara kept for Surrey in his three years at the club, which doesn't mean he's suddenly not a keeper either. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

See I'd say someone keeping wicket in about half of Sussex's games is more than an occasional wicketkeeper. Sussex interestingly aren't one of the sides who clarify by role (apart from wicketkeepers, where Salt is listed as N/A for bowling). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

But this is the thing - your subjective judgement is not a reliable source... if that were the case, we would be arguing over the likes of Willey, Rashid, Jordan, etc. being classed as all-rounders (because my subjective opinion is that they're not). But this is the point - it doesn't matter what we think, it's what the sources say. And there's no reliable, secondary source that only gives Pope as a batsman. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

His Hundred profile does list him as a batter, and there's a number of news articles that class him as a batsman or batter. If there is local consensus on here to list by their most regular position, then that should be fine. Players have been moved about on squad lists almost consistently (mainly all subjectively). If we are to go to what club websites then it's fine with me, but I'd want more than a couple of viewpoints on that. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That's probably better, but possibly doing it by player at Cricinfo - like is done for their stats in their infoboxes - is better than by doing it by club for some of the reasons mentioned above (Hants, Suss). Spa-Franks (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

CricInfo doesn't get things right all the time - for ages it had Ollie Robinson's (the Kent one) middle name flat out wrong (as did CA) and had Jordan Cox's birthplace as Portsmouth - which then got repeated all over the press when he made his 200 last summer. As for bowling style - it's a bit of a lottery at times. As a first place to look at, sure, but I wouldn't say it was entirely authoritative. And things change - Heino Kuhn hasn't kept wicket for years. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The amount of attention that's being given to this seems out of all proportion to something that's so relatively trivial. I'd be happy with either putting Pope among the batsmen with a note saying "occasional WK" or among the keepers with a note saying "only occasional WK". I suspect that nowadays both he and Surrey regard him as being primarily a batsman, but of course my suspicion isn't hard evidence. As to the suggestion that he'd have been keeping wicket instead of Smith but for his thigh strain, I thought he only picked that up in the match against Kent last Friday. JH (talk page) 08:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: Again, verifiability, not truth. Cricinfo is considered a reliable source. Whether it's wrong or not is, in WP terms, irrelevant. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Lol - sure, go ahead - shall we also have two George Webb (cricketer) articles? Or an article on Hensted Park rather than it's actual name? I can find 10 sources right now that tell you that Cox was born in Portsmouth, all because of CI's initial error. That would be enough to query would it? Sometimes using common sense is a better option. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Cricinfo is not the only source out there, there are plenty that describe Pope as a batsman, so no conflict between truth and verifiability here. Having said that, checking Cricinfo now, it says "PLAYING ROLE:Middle order batter". Spike 'em (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

A few queries

Hi all, please see my queries on Brenda Solzano-Rodney, England women's cricket team and (one from a while ago I forgot to draw attention to) Cricket in England, if interested. Help/opinions appreciated! Mpk662 (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment request

Hi all. I'm hoping to get John Manners (cricketer) to FA-class at some point this summer, I wonder if anyone would be kind enough to review it when you have time and give me some pointers – after 11 years this will be my first FA attempt! Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth clarifying at some point that there are women who have played Test cricket older than him? Not in the lead, as that clearly says first-class, but both Thelma McKenzie and Eileen Ash are older than he was when he died for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: I wonder if inserting changing the last sentence in the lead to read "...in September 2018 he became the longest-lived male first-class cricketer..." might suffice? And then perhaps having a note saying both McKenzie and Ash have played women's FC cricket and are older? I'm just wondering that because finding a reference which mentions all three along those lines is a bit troublesome! StickyWicket (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know, the sourcing on these things is difficult. It's something to bear in mind perhaps - it could be questioned and I think in general we do tend to say "cricketer" when we often mean "male cricketer". Not sure what the best option is mind you. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I've discovered that with the Lord's article. We may know, but without a source it's OR (even though it's right!). I haven't ever thought about it that way, I always use just "cricketer" when speaking about men's cricket and "women's cricketer" when talking about women. I'm not too sure either! StickyWicket (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Cricket deaths

The interesting and ?useful list of cricketers' deaths that used to be on the front page of WP:Cricket seems now to be very complicated to update. I've managed to update the list that's at the top of this talk page with Yashpal Sharma's recent demise, but I can't see how to do the list that's on the "News and Open Tasks" tab on the WP:CRIC page, and it doesn't seem to have been updated there for three months, which suggests I may not be alone in finding it difficult. I don't mind the fact that it now seems more orderly, if rather hidden, but it still ought to be easily accessible. Johnlp (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Johnlp: I'll add this to the main page in the next few days :) StickyWicket (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Johnlp (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Noel Miller

Remember this thread? Another editor has unilaterally moved the page to Noel Miller (cricketer) to make way for the YouTuber again. Richard3120 (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Lugnuts for moving it back. Richard3120 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

If the Youtuber article does get approved, it makes sense to move this to (cricketer), and make the base name a DAB page, in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and I said something similar in the previous thread. But at least a consensus should be established first. Richard3120 (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Forgot about the history of this TBH. I did check to see if there was another Noel Miller with a WP article before moving it back, and there wasn't. But if/when any other notable Noel Miller's are created, then a dab can be set up. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a Draft:Noel Miller (comedian), which got moved out of mainspace as undersourced, which is the one I was referring to. If that gets accepted, then disambiguating may be needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

ICC members

Hi. A few new members admitted today. If anyone is a tech-wizard with the map at this article, it would be great if it can be updated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Added Switzerland, Tajikistan and Mongolia as current members. According to Emerging Cricket, Russia have been suspended and Zambia go from suspended to expelled but I have not changed those two as yet. Bs1jac (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the progress of these new members, particularly Mongolia and Tajikistan – both teams and their domestic teams seem to be made up of homegrown players. StickyWicket (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A few high-quality cricket articles by Brianboulton

Three cricket-related articles were greatly improved by Brianboulton back in 2019, before they passed away. They have not been assessed since, so I thought I'd bring them to the attentions of participants here who might be interested in re-assessing their quality status, and perhaps nominating them for further assessment if applicable. The three are:

Best, CMD (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us known he has passed away, I wasn't aware. Others might also be unaware Lankiveil, who was a project member and contributed several cricket articles, passed away in 2018. StickyWicket (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Harris Garden, Lord's photo request

Hi all. Just working on the 'Other sports' section of the Lord's article and I discovered that the Harris Garden was formerly a tennis court and the dimensions for modern lawn tennis courts are based on it. I think a photo of the Harris Garden would be helpful to illustrate this, so I was wondering if anyone might have some photos they've taken of the Harris Garden lurking about? CHeers. StickyWicket (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Cumberland County Cricket Club

Has this been renamed 'Cumbria County Cricket Club'? StickyWicket (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The Cumberland Echo appears to be referring to them as Cumbria. As does the News and Star (incorporating The Cumberland News). So it seems likely. Don't tell the Historic Counties fan club... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: "Don't tell the Historic Counties fan club"... that'll be me! :D StickyWicket (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

See [3] and [4] Cumbria CCC appears to be the same club as Cumberland CCC (and if you go back far enough in time Cumberland and Westmoreland). It isn't clear from the website when they were renamed.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Wisden 2020, in its coverage of the 2019 season, calls them Cumberland. Because the Minor Counties - now renamed the National Counties - weren't able to play any matches in 2020, there's only a single page about them in the 2021 edition, and that doesn't mention Cumberland/Cumbria. But a websearch does suggest that Cumberland CCC must have been renamed Cumbria within the last year or so. I'm not sure if Westmoreland ever had a county side of their own, but if so they must have given up on being a separate entity. (Incidentally, our Minor Counties article probably ought to be renamed National Counties and include something about the name change, if that hasn't already been done.) JH (talk page) 09:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The Cumbria CCC history page I linked above states that the club started as "Cumberland and Westmoreland" but changed to just Cumberland when it joined the minor counties championship.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for what you've all found out. This was done very under-the-radar as I follow minor counties (or National Counties) quite closely. As Nigel Ish points out, the original club was the "Cumberland and Westmoreland County Cricket Club". I think their women's and youth sides have played as "Cumbria" for many years now. Still, Cumberland has a better ring to it. Westmorland seem to have been a separate entity in the late 1800s, though they were an informal side. StickyWicket (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Found this a few pages down the News section of their website - [5] - the name change was official from 1st Jan this year. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I moved it Cumbria County Cricket Club? StickyWicket (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we have any choice other than to move it there tbh. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. StickyWicket (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I've made some changes to templates and articles to reflect the change. The eponymous category will need a CfD to be moved, which I'll raise. Not sure though about List of Cumberland County Cricket Club List A players - should this be moved to List of Cumbria etc or not, given that all the List A games were played under the Cumberland name? --Bcp67 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A cricket club draft for a Worcestershire County League Premier Division club

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bromyard_Cricket_Club That is the draft I did 6 months ago and regularly update after each Saturday league game as well as another interested user. Any idea how much longer it will be before it gets looked at and/or approved? Writerupdate (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Writerupdate: it could take anything between hours and weeks; on this occasion, as it happens, I've just reviewed (and declined) it, as you may have seen already either from the draft and/or your talk page. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

PS: Would appreciate if those in the know about cricket could cast their eyes over the draft, to see if this club is likely to be inherently notable, because purely in the light of the (seemingly primary) sources it wouldn't meet WP:GNG. Also, feel free to offer your views on the content's level of detail and scope, which both seem excessive to a non-expert like me. (Probably best to comment on the draft talk page, so it's easily accessible to all.) Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Writerupdate:, @DoubleGrazing:. Unfortunately the cricket club in question fails our project inclusion guidelines. English cricket clubs beneath first-class and minor counties level must be included on this list at the very least to be included. I know that's likely to be disheartening, but if cricket is your interest we are always looking for editors who can expand or create content based on our notability guidelines. StickyWicket (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Or used to play at that level presumably? - there is relegation and promotion from at least some of those leagues and clubs merge and so on. @Rugbyfan22: it may be worth us coming back to those sorts of guidelines a little? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing:, personally I believe this sort of stuff needs to be included clearly in CRIN, but that never really got round to being updated. Obviously this club in discussion here has had some reasonable international players play for it as overseas players, and produced a few players for Worcestershire. I know in rugby union we have specific guidelines that states a club/team is notable if they've provided an administrator coach or player to a national side, so that could be a possibility.

Ah, I just went to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Notability and stuck some stuff on there.

The problem with overseas pros is that they can come over at 18 and play a season at a village side - and then that becomes notable? Or a domestic Test player starts out at their local side, playing in the firsts at 15 before joining the local premier league side at 17 - and that makes the village side anything more than village? I get what the rugby stuff means, but I'm not sure that applies in the same way here maybe.

We probably need to have a look at the list that AA quotes earlier (List of English and Welsh cricket league clubs) - I'm fairly certain Vauxhall Mallards have folded, for example. A job to add to the list... Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no inherent notability from being in an ECB Premier League, it's just slightly more likely than clubs that are not competing at that level, or producing an elite cricketer. I suspect that the vast majority of recreational cricket clubs, including many on that list (which is not up to date), comprehensively fail GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Certainly I'd say there's a massive difference between some of the leagues - the Kent league clubs are, I'd say, way more notable than most of the East Anglian ones. And, clearly, the Lancs and Central Lance leagues are massively more notable than most of the other leagues. Is there a way forward or is this is a reasonable place to draw a line anyway? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, but formulating a reliable SNG for clubs at this level would result in an extremely short list of leagues. I would say leave GNG as the line. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Better guidance might be helpful though. Maybe we need to say may be notable in a Premier League. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The SNG should only give guidance as to when notability is highly likely; "may be notable" doesn't really give any guidance at all. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Meharab Hasan

Hi all, please could a cricket expert review Meharab Hasan? I have tagged the claim "He made his List Adebut for Prime Bank Cricket Club in the 2020-2021 Bangabandhu Dhaka Premier League on 31 May 2021" as 'failed verification' because the cited source does not verify the statement. Furthermore, this scorecard has no mention of him. The creator is a new editor who perhaps is struggling to cite the correct source. Please could someone with access to other (or better) sources please double check? If he did play in that game then, of course, I will withdraw the AfD. Thanks in advance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone: CricketArchive is suggesting no List A appearances at all. The competition he has stated to have played in is a T20 tournament anyway so wouldn't have LA status anyway, so I believe it's just a bogus claim. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone: My guess would be that this article was copied from a player who debuted in that match, with the names and details changed to Meharab Hasan. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Prime Bank did play in the 2021 Dhaka Premier Division Twenty20 Cricket League on the 31st May, but there were no debuts in that match. But I agree with RF22's thinking - copy & paste of someone who did debut, and change the name. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Dhaka Premier Division Twenty20 Cricket League is one of the List A cricket tournaments that aren't deemed notable, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Official cricket#Men's Competitions with First-class/List A/T20 status that we don't deem notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Cricket grounds in California has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cricket grounds in California has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Cricket grounds in Florida has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cricket grounds in Florida has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Cricket grounds in Texas has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cricket grounds in Texas has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Hundred (cricket)#Requested move 11 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Hundred (cricket)#Requested move 11 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 11:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Two Ashes series articles?

Do we really need both 2021–22 Ashes series and English cricket team in Australia in 2021–22 articles? Apart from the Ashes Test matches, England are just scheduled to play one tour match. Usually, we have separate articles as there are ODI/T20I matches in the tour too, but that doesn't look to be the case this time. So seems like we've got 2 articles on exactly the same Test series. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a warm-up match in there, isn't there? So surely the answer is yes? Not least from a consistency POV too? Australian cricket team in England in 2019 is still there. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking this the other day too. As there is no ODI/T20I matches taking place, and prehaps only a token warm-up match (or two), one should be merged into the other. Happy to do that, but which title would remain? I'm guessing 2021–22 Ashes series would be the common-name for WP and the non-WP world too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

A different year, but my brain is trying to process exactly why we appear to have four articles about the 74-75 Ashes: English cricket team in Australia in 1974–75, MCC tour of Australia in 1974–75 and 1974–75 Ashes series. And then the surprisingly named Australian cricket team in Australia in 1974–75. I can see some point in having two articles, just about (although I wouldn't). But which ones? Please; my brain is hurting. (e2a: we have the same thing for 58/59 as well...) Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, don't need four on the 1974-75 tour/series. The one devoted to just the Test match series should stay, and a choice made between the "MCC" one and the "English" one to cover the tour overall. Bit of fence sitting here - I would understand people opting for MCC as that was relevant authority at the time, and also understand a push for "English" to be the title used. Whichever ends up chosen one, I think ALL such articles, no matter what date of tour, would need to be titled in same manner for consistency. RossRSmith (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

And the same for 65/66 as well and others from the mid 1950s to mid 1970s. The Australian cricket team in Australia in 1974–75 article covers the series from the perspective of the Australian team, so there could be a case for retaining that. Looking back it appears that the terminology "English team in...." is favoured, random example English cricket team in Australia in 1920–21, and that name works regardless of the authority responsible, so it covers tours prior to MCC's first official one in 1903-04 and after TCCB (later ECB) took over responsibility from the late 1960s. The "MCC" name for the touring team was retained up to and including the 1976-77 tour although MCC had relinquished their official involvement by then. Do we need separate articles for test series and tour though? Could they not be merged into a single article? --Bcp67 (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought so. I'll see about proposing some merges at some point perhaps. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at this a bit more and there does seem to be a rationale behind the four articles and they appear to have been planned as a set - see here User:Philipjelley. So for each of the Ashes series from 1946–47 to 1974–75 there is a set of at least four, and sometimes five articles. "English cricket team...." covers the England players, captain, manager and gives background to the tour, along with player career Test statistics. "Australian cricket team..." does the same for Australia, and both articles give summary scores of the Test matches. ".... Ashes series" covers the Test series in detail with match reports, summary scores and averages. "MCC tour of...." covers the non-Test tour matches, both first-class and non-first-class, with match reports and scores, plus tour averages. In some cases there is also an "Umpiring..." article covering something specific, like the throwing and dragging controversies in 1958–59. As a set of articles for each series, they give really comprehensive coverage although there is repetition of the Test scores across the articles. They look well-written and well-referenced too. I think merging them would be quite a task and could lead to very big articles, so I've changed my view and would say they either ought be left as they are, and just some See Also work needed to cross-refer to the other articles, or possibly merge the "English cricket team..." and "MCC tour of..." into a single article.--Bcp67 (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan cricket team

Does anything need to be edited about this with the whole situation over there? CreativeNorth (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Not as yet I don't think, will be interesting to see what happens to the game, though I hear they're fans. StickyWicket (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the men's team are still playing cricket series, will have to see about the women's team. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

They have not really played much before (they were forced to have central contracts at the end of last year, but there was not really an initiative to let them play internationally). But we'll see.--Maphry (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Tour series postponed/cancelled?

Presumably Afghan cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2021 didn't happen, as it was scheduled for July/August 2021, and no fixtures are there? Does anyone know if it was postponed or cancelled officially? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

End of June they were still negotiating ([6]). But at that time Sri Lanka was busy to handle the postponed India Tour of 2020. Added to this topic: Up to the pandemic the International Cricket overviews did not include any Tour that was postponed or cancelled. It is a new habit to keep them in there. Is that really necessary? It leads to a lot of footnotes that tours are cancelled and quite hard to follow.--Maphry (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold and redirected it to the 2020–2023 ICC Cricket World Cup Super League, as it is/was a part of this. It really bugs me when the ICC goes all silent on these tours that are scheduled in their FTP and then don't take place as planned. You'd think that as of the start of the month, this could have been part of Afghanistan's trip to Sri Lanka... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it this one that have been moved to be played between September 1 and 5? --Moedk (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that one has been cancelled as per this CreativeNorth (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a little confusing, but they are/were two different tours. Afghanistan should have played three ODIs against Sri Lanka AND a three-match ODI series against Pakistan. The latter was moved to Sri Lanka, due to the IPL/T20 World Cup moving to the UAE, which is one of Afghanistan's "home" venues. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Franchise renaming, the case of Dambulla Viiking

I thought when the ownership of a franchise changed, the new franchise is considered a brand new team. The widely known precedent is the case of Deccan Chargers/Sunrisers Hyderabad. Similarly in CPL, when the Leeward Islands franchise, Antigua Hawksbills ceased, St Kitts & Nevis Patriots sprung up. A Simple Human (talk · contribs) has renamed the article Dambulla Viiking to Dambulla Giants, which I think is a little hasty. The article cited for rename doesn't even mention Dambulla Viiking. I think the old article should be left as it is and a new article should be created for the new team.--Chanaka L (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Alec Stewart coincidence

Would you reference this with this, or remove it as trivia. I am sure there are countless similar coincidences relating to player statistics that we that we don't mention - what's the general consensus for these in cricketer articles? ----Pontificalibus 05:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it - I think I'd need to see much wider coverage of this - and know that different date styles had been checked (how about 4863 or 6348?) Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan cricket articles

Yet again, an anon IP is seeking to split the tables in our Pakistan domestic competitions articles (Quaid-e-Azam Trophy‎, Pakistan Cup‎, National T20 Cup‎) into pre- and post- latest restructuring (as if they are new unrelated competitions). To me this makes no sense because the structure in Pakistan has changed every few years for the last 65 years and there does not seem to be any argument for giving the current structure special treatment more than any other – indeed doing so seems WP:UNDUE WP:RECENTISM. The IP is also introducing an abundance of MOS issues. Anyway, I've reverted enough, so some more eyes and thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

TFD

Your comment is requested at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 9#Template:Infobox cricket series begin. Izno (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Jarvo 69

I PRODed this but it was declined. Useless article to take to AfD or keep? StickyWicket (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E? I know being poorly written is not a reason for deleting, but if it were to be kept it needs a huge clear up, which I can't be bothered doing! Spike 'em (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Though there are articles on Karl Power and Erica Roe, which are the most relevant comparisons I can think of. Not convinced that this idiot will have lasting notability. Spike 'em (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly don't see this warranting a standalone article at the moment; and don't expect any long lasting coverage to justify one in future. Perhaps a sentence or two in the Indian cricket team in England in 2021 article would cover it, if it needs to be included anywhere here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I see someone has already taken him to AfD. Can't see any long-lasting coverage or legacy with him. StickyWicket (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Qilhri

Could someone have a look over and probably revert and tag any image uploads by this user. Looks like they spammed a load of copyrighted images on this morning, but I haven't had time to go through them all, and need to go to work now. (Looks like another Vallabharebel sock). Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

IPL logo on season articles

Do we really need the logo of IPL on season articles? I've removed it from the 2021 page. These logos, unlike the ones of other franchise leagues, don't change every tournament. We don't use the BBL logo on season articles, do we? Clog Wolf _Howl 10:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it isn't fair use, it needs to go from the season articles. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#UUI #14. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I have removed from 2019 season article too. My bad for adding it to 2021 IPL article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I have started a Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 September 15#File:IPL 2019 logo.jpg, as I don't see a valid use for that logo on English Wikipedia. Anyone feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have removed them from 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 articles as well. Not sure what to do with the 2008 and 2020 ones. Clog Wolf _Howl 11:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

2020 is a separate logo for that event (as it includes "Dream 11" on it, which was a name for the tournament). So as it's a specific logo for the tournament, I believe it's fine. 2008 looks like a "generic" IPL logo (so not specific to 2008 season), so not sure it's a valid use. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Cricket team squad lists

Hi guys, did we come to any consensus on how squad lists should be organised without the column headers in the middle of the table, as they go against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. There was some discussion here on it, but no real consensus. I only bring this up as I've just gone round changing batsman to batters on English team squad lists, and with it being near the end of the season and so squad lists being updated. My preference is still to organise by squad number as it seems logical. Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it fully complies with the MOS any longer, but Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009 shows how I did it to meet the MOS for a FA a number of years ago now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, not seen splitting the tables like that suggested, but it would seem to pass the guidelines as it's what's used in the first good example. There was discussion of keeping it to one table as not all players fit into the specific batter/all-rounder/wicketkeeper/bowler anymore due to less specialisation and players having different roles in different formats. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm a big fan of keeping categorisation of players by role, but again take the point on accessibility. Perhaps we could copy/adapt the template that's used for football squads? Players are sorted by shirt number, and have role, nationality and name (and I would argue for adding DOB, batting style + bowling style, as we already have). Perhaps someone with more experience with Wikipedia templates would be able to set an example up? But I think that may be the best way to retain information but conform to accessibility guidelines. Mpk662 (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I remember your suggestion was to keep the tables the same (without the accessibility middle columns), but add role to it next to the squad number, which I thought was a suitable enough idea. Obviously a template could be created, but they tend to have limited information in them (football having squad number, position, nationality and name; while rugby union has name, position and nationality only). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

You'll need to watch the width of the tables - check how it looks on a mobile device viewing the desktop site. I regularly have issues with tables getting too wide for a MacBook fwiw let alone an iPad size screen. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the width would change from what it is currently. I think all the tables are set at 80% width, another row would just be added to it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of ordering lists of players by squad number, as I wouldn't expect that most people looking for a player in a list would know what their squad number was. I certainly wouldn't, for one. I much prefer ordering alphabetically by last name. JH (talk page) 07:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sort my name would be fine with me, squad numbers would be fine too. Apart from the accessibility issue, my other issue was lots of people being listed as all-rounders when they're really just bowlers who bat a bit. And their roles don't match those listed on Cricinfo (which uses batter/bowler/all-rounder). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

How about removing the wicket-keeper section entirely (as there's been discussion on whether a player is a wicket-keeper or batsman who occasionally keeps wicket) and using a symbol as used in some list articles (♠ is used to show someone that has kept wicket) to show a player who has kept wicket for the team before. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Have done a test case on what this would look like here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I really, really, really dislike the used of the spade. I'd rather have w/k (or WK) - if they are part time keepers then (w/k); if they're obviously main keepers, WK or W/K. We're losing the idea of someone being a wicket-keeper, which I think is an issue actually. If we have to have a symbol, a dagger is much more widely used

I'd also much rather that any position came *after* the name - we're not defining them by position anymore, so why put them before the name? Could we reduce the row width by:

use Right and Left for batting?
use 100% width for the tables
reduce the font-size to 80% - I don't like this option, but with all this information

Per MOS:SMALL this is frowned upon, but if we do go for it, then we shouldn't go beyond 85%. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

use abbreviations for the nationality (Eng or Aus would save a lot of space - especially if we could lose the flags

Maybe, but we would need to be really clear on this, and I'm not sure it is work it: is Aus Australia or Austria? I appreciate there are ISO compliant standards for abbreviations, but not everyone knows them, and they often aren't obvious. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Harrias, Interested to know if you prefer the squad lists used on Southern Brave for example, as opposed to those used on county pages at the moment (not sure what readability is like for them on mobile devices though). The spade was just a suggestion as we've had issues over whether someone should be listed as a wicket-keeper or not (Ollie Pope for example, was a keeper growing up and is listed as one in a few places, but hasn't kept for a while, same with Ben Duckett, or Phil Salt traditionally a batsman but kept wicket in T20 and Hundred this year). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The use of flags without the country name on Southern Brave is a direct contravention of MOS:FLAG (section titled "Accompany flags with country names") I really don't like the garish use of colour either. I do like the simplicity of your mock-up; I agree with some others that it would make more sense to sort by name, rather than squad number, but we should make it sortable too, so that it can be done by squad number, or role, or whatever. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'm still working on the mock-up and making changes depending on people's views. I'll see if there's a way of shortening the nationalities to three letter abbreviations as used on the football templates. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Harrias, Think I've managed to implement the most of these on my test page, I agree it actually looks a fair bit better now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm actually not sold on moving away from the current option if I'm honest. I get the problem with all-rounders, and CI etc... can occasionally be a little late to change on this, but that problem persists with any change. (e2a: or move to the much more condensed football-like version) Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I rather agree about sorting on name as the default fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving the squad number column if sorting by name, perhaps to after bowling style, to avoid confusion here. But it's certainly a possibility. Although everybody seems to have a different preference for what they want, which is probably why this hasn't been sorted in the past. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion

It seems there is some consensus for sorting alphabetically instead of by squad numbers, but to make the tables sortable. There seems to be some consensus for keeping the roles as they are currently, but listing them as a row instead of a column, and using common sense for deciding who splits into which column as club websites and CricInfo can have biases or be out of date depending on the player. I've done a mock-up for what an updated squad list may look like here and interested to know people's views. I've had a look at it on a mobile device and it reads the same as the tables we have at the moment. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Virat Kohli

Had to laugh just now when I came here and saw the discussion immediately above. I've started a GA review of the Virat Kohli article and I immediately saw in the lead that he is a right-handed top-order batsman. I saw the news clip a few days ago about batsmen being called batters from now on, so I wondered if I should change all of the batsman mentions in Kohli's article to batter. As you haven't reached a decision yet, I'll take no action and it will be a while before I complete the review anyway.

If anyone can offer any help with the Kohli article, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Batter v Batsman

I know that MCC have changed the Laws to refer to batters rather than batsmen, but shouldn't we make our own decision on this? I have no real objection to using "Batter" but feel it should be a wiki style guide issue rather than just following one source. Spike 'em (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

We should make our own decision by discussion/consensus. My personal preference is to keep using batsman- it's been good enough for 200+ years, we don't need to default to a recentism. Though for women's cricket articles, batter is now the common term, so would use batter on those articles only. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel for current (and future) men's players 'batter' should be used now, but for historic players 'batsman' should be an acceptable term. For all women's players current and past I feel that 'batter' should be used. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this a couple of years ago somewhere and I opted to keep batsman then. Clearly for women, batter should be used always. It's been just about universally used in the women's game for a while. Increasingly, for current male players, I would have no problem with batter - I think things have moved on over the last 12 months even. I don't have an overwhelming preference for that yet, but in squad tables, for example, I think I'd prefer it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep batsman for men's cricket, plus we aren't baseball or rounders. StickyWicket (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would say that "batter" should be the preference in articles relating to the women's game, while either "batsman" or "batter" should be acceptable in article relating to the men's game. For the latter, I think we should tend to the status quo: similar to some other parts of the MOS; if it currently uses "batsman", we shouldn't change it, but if someone writes a new article and uses "batter", it shouldn't be changed to "batsman". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Independent of that. All general articles (rules, positions, technique) around Cricket should be "batter" only.--Maphry (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Well they shouldn't, WP:COMMONNAME isn't overidden by the MCC. StickyWicket (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree, the common name for 200+ years has been "batsman". Changing that is just a massive WP:RECENTISM, and I would be against this. Also, such a massive, overarching change would need a proper project consensus to happen. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with changing all references to "batsmen" and "batswomen" to "batters", but no point going out of our way to make that change in one fell swoop. – Pee Jay 12:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently reviewing the Virat Kohli article (see below), so this interests me. I would agree that batter is the correct term for all women players and it must also apply to all future male players. For past male players, I strongly believe that batsman should be retained because otherwise you are rewriting history. The main problem, as with Kohli, is which term to use for current players with the difficulty that he was called a batsman until now and will be a batter from now on. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Updating the language used is not the same as "rewriting history". Or are we to revisit all historical articles and rewrite them using the language of the day? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You have missed the point. Histories use the terminology of the time. A history of ancient Greece features a phalanx of hoplites, not a platoon of infantry. Don Bradman's article says he is regarded as the greatest-ever batsman. Are you going to rewrite his history to say he was the greatest-ever batter? No Great Shaker (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that. – Pee Jay 20:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I can find batter being used in Wisden at least as early as 1925 - specifically to describe William Mackworth Young - and in Cricket magazine of 1900 in a poem to describe Tom Hayward. I suspect it's been used for a while. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

PCA Player of the Year

Just wanted to get a few opinions/thoughts/clarifications surrounding the PCA Player of the Year and PCA Women's Player of the Summer.

1. The criteria seems to have changed for the women's award - the wiki article refers to it only being for members of the England team, and obviously calls it Player of the Summer. This year, Evelyn Jones won the award named the Player of the Year - is this just new for this year, with the addition of domestic professionals? Either way, the page should probably be moved to PCA Women's Player of the Year.

2. However, this would create a weird mix where we have a 'Player of the Year' and a 'Women's Player of the Year' - this kind of thing happens a lot! So I think there are two options here - either move the page to Men's Player of the Year (and PCA Young Player of the Year to Men's Young Player of the Year), or have all the awards on one page (presumably entitled just PCA Player of the Year) - including the Women's Young Player of the Year, which is new for this year and probably doesn't require its own page yet.

Anyway, would be nice to hear some thoughts on this! Mpk662 (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Those seem sensible solutions. On principle I think we'll need to move more towards specifying playing gender in titles in a number of areas - and certainly not making the assumption that women's cricket doesn't exist. The alternative is to combine both playing genders into one article, which might be possible. As an aside, I'm not sure whether there's a need to draw a distinction between One Day International and Women's One Day International, for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The PCA now refer to the awards as men's, men's young, and women's player of the year; we should probably reflect that. If the articles can be merged PCA Player of the Year awards or simply PCA awards would seem reasonable options. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger now proposed here. Mpk662 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: if interested, please see the talk page again as I have created a draft merged page here to address ideas/concerns raised about how the new page would look. Mpk662 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

"franchise career" section headings and content, etc

I often contribute to biographies of women cricketers. Some of these biographies, and especially the ones about prominent current players (eg Meg Lanning, Ellyse Perry), are now quite long and elaborate, and are therefore divided into sections.

Biographical articles about such players (including the ones about about correspondingly prominent men cricketers) often include the section heading "International career". Such sections conventionally include content only about the subject's involvement in matches for her (or his) national team or second XI, U19 team, etc. Biographical articles often also include the section heading "Domestic career", which conventionally refers to and covers domestic matches in the subject's home country.

However, in many cases the subject is also involved in domestic matches other than in the subject's home country. Sometimes biographical articles use the section heading "Domestic and franchise career", or "Domestic and T20 franchise career", instead of just "Domestic career", so as to cover content about such involvement.

Now that many players compete in "The Hundred" (which is not a T20 competition), and given that players sometimes also play domestic List A matches (and in the case of men cricketers, first class matches) other than in the player's home country, I suspect that the former expanded wording is more appropriate. However, neither expanded wording is completely satisfactory, because List A and first class teams are usually not "franchise" teams in the sense in which domestic T20 and The Hundred teams are "franchise" teams.

There's also an issue whether there should be separate sections for "Domestic career" and "Franchise career" or "T20 franchise career", especially where the subject has played a lot of domestic matches outside the player's home country. If there are such separate sections, then the latter two wordings become even more problematical, because where a subject plays franchise team T20 matches in the subject's home country, all three of the wordings I have quoted in this paragraph are capable of referring to those home country matches.

So what's the solution?

May I suggest a convention that where the subject has played lots of domestic matches outside the subject's home country, the headings be: "Domestic career in [name of player's home country]" and "Domestic career outside [name of player's home country]" and "International career" (commonly in that order, bearing in mind that a subject will commonly have debuted in each type of match in that order)?

Such a convention would allow for the fact that the subject may play for both home franchises and foreign franchises, and/or List A and/or domestic first class cricket in more than one country for teams that are not really "franchises". It therefore appears to overcome the issues I have identified above. Or does another editor have a better suggestion? Bahnfrend (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

To me, "domestic cricket" does not just mean a player playing in their own country but any non-international cricket that takes place in a country. So an Australian player playing in England is still playing domestic cricket. So I would just include it under a domestic career heading (as I have for the domestic English women cricketers who have played abroad), and have sub-headings for each country if the section gets too long. Mpk662 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, domestic cricket = non-international cricket, don't see a need to split by countries it was played in in my opinion. Those linked examples have way too many subheadings. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I Also agree with the above, domestic cricket is any professional cricket that isn't international. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with what others have suggested. Sub-heads might be helpful when domestic sections get long. Either that or radical cutting of what seemed like important details when they were added to an article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

History of first-class matches between Ireland and Scotland

Hi all. The above is an area I am looking to make an article on once I'm done with MCC cricketers. I've tried to find some written sources detailing the history of matches between the two, but alas no luck. I wonder if anyone has anything which covers this topic? StickyWicket (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi AA! Cricket Europe has this on their website. I've picked a few years at random, and each match has a detailed report and a link to the full scorecard. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Lugnuts, never knew these reports existed. I guess other stuff can be found on BNA, if I can ever decide to buy a subscription! StickyWicket (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Hi. For info, this article is a FA and is on today's main page. There's a discussion on its talkpage about WP:OR. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, in my opinion all of these "Player X with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" should be deleted. It was a fun project at the time, but Wikipedia hasn't gone down the route of being down this detailed, and it just doesn't fit with the modern Wikipedia. And yes, horribly full of OR. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, I quite like them. If the sources exist, write about it! StickyWicket (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I've always thought these articles were too much detail for a single tour. It should be possible to cover the individual contributions of any player in that player's article or that of the tour itself. – Pee Jay 19:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

notability for umpire

I was thinking of nominating Mizanur Rahman (umpire) for afd. However i was not sure. What is the notability guideline for umpire? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Has stood in 54 domestic matches in Bangladesh, I'd say that number warrants and satisfies inclusion. StickyWicket (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NCRIC. Since the cricket notability guidelines were updated, umpires must now have been on the ICC Elite Panel to be presumed notable. Even then, it must be shown that WP:GNG is met by reference to multiple independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage such that a biographical article can be written, not just listing and embellishing bare statistical information. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Did we really agree that every umpire of an high level official cricket match is notable? I don't remember a discussion for this, but WP:NCRIC point 4 says umpires are notable if they meet the same standards as players. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

My reading of point 4 is that if an umpire is not on the international panel that they have to pass 1,2 or 3 as a player rather than as an umpire (not sure if this is the same point you are trying to make). It previously held that umpiring a top-level game directly conferred notability upon umpires. Discussion on change took place here. Spike 'em (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah my views on umpires was that when we were updating them, they had to be on the ICC Elite panel, or have passed another of the guidelines as a player, or have GNG coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That makes more sense than how I was reading it (as they could meet any of the player requirements as an umpire). Thanks all for clarifying. And in this case, that means Mizanur Rahman (umpire) doesn't meet WP:NCRIC, so would need to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

He seems to have been the standing umpire when Shakib Al Hassan kicked the stumps out the ground, so there's some coverage there. Their also appears to be some coverage of him being a match referee, but whether or not this would be enough for a GNG pass I'm not sure (obviously this is only English language also). I'm guessing the article was created before the guidelines changed, so perhaps some grace could be given for that also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Flag of Afghanistan

The flag of Afghanistan seems to have changed in the cr template. Was this ever agreed on here? As far as I know, the Islamic Emirate is not recognised by any sovereign country, that includes non of the ICC member nations. Human (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It's been changed in Template:Country data Afghanistan, and I assume the cricket template is using that. To use the old flag, you'd have to use {{cr|AFG|2013}} instead of {{cr|AFG}}. Or we could maybe change the cr template so it always uses the 2013 flag (if that's possible). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec) {{cr}} inherits whatever is specified in the corresponding country data template, which for Afghanistan was changed by this edit. Whether there was discussion and consensus for that change, I do not know, but there is nothing on the template talk page and the edit summary did not refer to any. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion (and RFC) for the change at Template talk:Country data Afghanistan, but doesn't look like anyone considered the impact of the change on existing articles (e.g. for Afghanistan pre-2021 articles). I have left a note there to this end. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of how the flags work. But the ACB is still using the Republic flag in its social media handles and various other places. Human (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it likely that there will be some sort of change to the cricket flag, or will this have to be done manually? As Joseph2302 says there seems to have been no thought what would have happen. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Another issue is the for the flags in the first/last teams playing at X venue. Take a look at Sheikh Zayed Cricket Stadium, for example. The team parameter is just text, rather than the cric flag template. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

{{Infobox cricket ground}} has a bunch of parameters such as |firsttesthomevar= & |firsttestawayvar= which will be passed through to the call to {{cr}}, so it should be possible to amend individual infoboxes; it may need a slightly convoluted search to find occurrences of them though. Spike 'em (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Didn't know about that field - thanks Spike! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Nor did I until I checked the code this morning! I vaguely remembered that the infobox used used {{cr}} and was about to start experimenting with how to pass a pipe symbol through to the lowest-level template. Spike 'em (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

England India rearranged Test

Posted this on the 2021 series talkpage, but realised it's probably better to post here. As per [7], The rearranged Test will count towards the outcome of the series, which India lead 2-1. It counts towards the 2021 series, so should be listed there rather than the 2022 series, in my opinion. It's a continuation of the 2021 series, so not having it there seems wrong- how could we display a score of 2-2 or 3-1 for that series, if there's only 2 Indian wins and 1 England win in the article? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, having a few moments to think about this now, I agree it should be part of the 2021 series. A unique situation, but hopefully covered by any (foot)notes to explain this to anyone passing by in 10, 20 or 50 years from now. Next pandmeic permitting. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding all T20 World Cup matches to ground articles

Hi. Is there a (good) reason why all the matches being played at the T20 Cricket World Cup are also added to their respective ground article such as this, this and this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope, seems to just be a duplication of information from 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, and massively WP:UNDUE as the stadia have hosted many matches, so no need to focus on the current T20 World Cup fixtures. e.g. Sharjah has hosted 236 ODIs, Sheikh Zayed Cricket Stadium has hosted multiple notable tournaments/international series in the past, so why should these articles by overburdened with information on a handful of fixtures this year? Pinging Nijhum1996, who added them to Oman Cricket Academy Ground (the others were added by a dynamic IP address). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

No good reason. The only one I can think is that it's silly season - the IPL just finished and now this starts. It's almost predictable - that is when infobox fields that don't exist are being added to articles. Should be rolled back imo Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both. Thought I was missing something. I've removed them from those articles and from the Dubai International Cricket Stadium page too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I've seen lists of World Cup games on other stadium articles, mainly in relation to rugby for some reason (e.g. Twickenham Stadium and Wembley Stadium), but they are always in a short table rather than expanded details as here. I don't think there is any need for even a reduced table of these WC games. Spike 'em (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced Venue - Royal Challengers Bangalore

There is not Citation/Source to verify This Section In Royal Challengers Bangalore article. I think this section is not necessary. Should it update further?? Or Should we remove it? (Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 03:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC))

I would say remove, per WP:NOTSTATS and also WP:VERIFY], as it's unsourced. It looks like part of the IPL stats fandom that we don't need here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Match delay by wet outfield

For a Cricket match, Is it necessary to mention 'DELAYED BY WET OUTFIELD' that was due to rain? Even with Inline citations? Or else just to mention 'THE MATCH WAS REDUCED TO this much OVERS DUE TO RAIN'. Generally we wouldn't have a wet outfield without raining.Kirubar (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've sat at grounds where it's not rained all day but the outfield was too wet for play, at least at the start of the day. I think it certainly happened at Canterbury earlier this year on at least one occasion. And the outfield at New Road, Worcester has certainly had issues with being a touch too damp for play when it's been glorious weather. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

But here wet outfield was completely because of raining before the start of the match (This case was from ongoing 2021–22 WBBL season's Match 14). Also in Cricket Australia's Match Report they mentioned as follows: While rain and a wet outfield delayed the start of play, fears of a repeat of Saturday's complete washout were abated when the Invermay Park match got underway with 11 overs a side.Heat hold on.... As Blue Square Thing mentioned some rare cases of wet outfield not bcoz of rain and that's specific to be mentioned. But here it's very common and crystal clear that was due to rain. So what to mention for that match? In RAIN parameter? 1. Simply, The match was reduced to 11 overs per side due to rain. Or 2. The match was reduced to 11 overs per side due to rain and followed by a wet outfield (with inline citations of CA match report)? Kirubar (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"Match reduced to 11 overs a side due to rain and a wet outfield". Tbh it doesn't matter that much - we're not actually a scorecard service. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Templates for individual matches

I've noticed that some cricket articles (mainly IPL series) have started using templates for every match e.g. Template:2021 IPL match 1. I don't believe there was ever a consensus to do this, as we just out the scorecards on the pages it's needed, and none of these templates look to be used more than 3 times. Should they be deleted? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If there wasn't a consensus for them to be used then I think they should be deleted, how do they differ from the typical cricket scorecard template as I can't really see a difference just looking at it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

There is definitely some utility in only recording the information once rather than 3 times, but whether this should be as is as a template is debatable. Spike 'em (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to have been happening as far back as the 2018 tournament, for every match, so somebody would have to fix all of these on the tournament and specific team pages, are we sure there isn't anything on the IPL project or here from back then. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

There was a deletion discussion here citing some of the concerns about fixing all of the pages. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the need to replicate the full match scorecard on a team's page as well as the main tournament. The team's page should really use the reduced summary of a match, such as the ones used on the 2020–2023 ICC Cricket World Cup Super League article. The irony being that the main IPL tournament page is protected from vandalism, but all the match templates are not. Someone's gone into a lot of effort to find a solution to a problem that never existed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If someone has the time to replace all the templates with the suggested scorecards and reduced summary, then I don't see a reason why these templates can't be deleted. It would probably help stop another 50/60 being created for next season, which are much harder to pick up for vandalism or inaccurate changes as they won't pop up on a watchlist. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Those Scorecard Templates are linked/Used with IPL Season pages and Team Individual Season Pages. 1 Template is used for all Three articles.

For Example:- Here , Here and Here

So it is not possible to delete those templates, Because There are 240 Scorecard Templates are Used/Linked in Indian Premier League from 2018 to 2021 with IPL Season pages and Team Individual Season Pages. (Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 03:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC))

That's missing the point: there wasn't agreement to use them in the first place, the scorecards are static information so don't need templates, and templates are mor prone to vandalism as nobody watches them. IPL articles shouldn't be making up their own rules on how to write articles. Also, before deleting, we would hard code tge information anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

As I have also said above, these templates can be replaced with the correct agreed upon scoreboxes and summaries. I don't see any improvement that these templates have created, they're just harder to maintain as Joseph2302 states. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't get these consensus concerns: there is no need to pre-approve changes to articles or to develop new standards. Now that they have been in place for 3 years, I think we need a clear consensus to remove them. As mentioned above, I support having the information stored in 1 placed rather than 3, but think it could be done as either section or sub-page transclude rather than as templates. Spike 'em (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

No, nor me. Information such as this, that is duplicated in multiple articles, should be transcluded in some way; templates are a fairly standard way of doing it, but other methods may be preferable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

So, For 2022 Indian Premier League, Indian Premier League Project Will not create Template for Scorecard. The templates will be replace with scoreboxes and summaries.(Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 14:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC))

Four old, unused templates nominated for deletion

In case anyone here is interested, I have nominated four old templates from this project for deletion, following up on this discussion from 2016. Comment on that page if you have objections or wish to support the nomination. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Notification of FAR for Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

I have nominated Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the sourcing of the article is under question at the FAR - some of it entirely fairly. If anyone has convenient access to a copy of the 1949 edition of Wisden it might be helpful. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no way this should be a featured article. I could understand the likes of Bradman having articles given the mountains of content specifically about their 1948 tour but this is a serious stretch. Potentially, this could be turned into a list with a summary of Ring's first-class performance on tour, along with a pared back summary. Hack (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Rohitha Rajapaksha

It appears that the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka's son debuted in domestic cricket yesterday, in what I am assuming is an act of nepotism [8]. There's more to it though as according to sources he is doing this so he is eligible to take up some administrative role, however he denies this [9]. Also he seems to have something to do with the broadcasting of the LPL [10]. After a quick look at WP:OFFCRIC the competition he played in is not recognised. So I am assuming he is not notable and doesn't deserve an article, though I am not sure which is why I am asking here. Thoughts? CreativeNorth (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

He probably meets WP:GNG, so that would be enough. I'll have a look for more info on him and look to knock up something later. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Debuts aged 32... almost certainly a case of nepotism, unless he's a very late bloomer! StickyWicket (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I find it funny though with his dad being the PM how he couldn’t just get him to change the criteria to be an administrator. Maybe he wanted a Cricinfo profile! CreativeNorth (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Reminds me of when Al-Saadi Gaddafi (son of the Colonel) was the Libyan football captain. Political, but probably they don't want to be seen as influencing the cricket administration. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't there a LPL team owner who played himself at 40-something? StickyWicket (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Abdul Latif Ayoubi! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: that's the guy, cheers! StickyWicket (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Whippersnapper James Moses has been selected to play for Botswana again, at the ripe young age of 56. Although back in 2019, Turkey had four players aged 54 or over, including one who was 59 years old... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Give Stevo a chance... Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Rohitha Rajapaksha played for Sri Lanka in Rugby, therefore he meets WP:NRU notability criteria.--Chanaka L (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW he doesn't pass any rugby guidelines, no professional or notable international appearances from what I can see. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Virat Kohli

Could some knowledgeable in Virat Kohli involve with the article and improve its stability? It was setup for a third GA nomination and yet failed (delisted in the past). I believe there is a content dispute going on right now. Thanks! — DaxServer (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I doubt it's worth the bother of trying to do anything with the article other than remove any obvious fancruft. The quality of editing on current Indian international cricketer articles in general and certainly someone as high profile as Kohli is generally an issue. It would take a crew of editors able to revert changes on a daily basis to stand a chance with this sort of article.

It would help if there was any kind of style guide to enable us to move articles forward - I would think that for GA+ status we probably need to move away from the domestic/international/ipl split that's adopted in this article and move towards something more chronological - as is the general approach at featured articles such as Adam Gilchrist and Wally Hammond. But without some kind of guidance on that we're stuck trying to battle people adding that he scored 37 runs in 23 balls with 3 fours, a six and 14 singles on a day when it was partly cloudy and a left handed umpire was standing at the pavilion end. Or whatever else it is that someone thinks is notable and fascinating. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD related to Cricket

There is currently an AfD discussion that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Editors may wish to participate, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination). Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Evelyn or Eve Jones

Hi guys, following a discussion with Mpk662 or whether or not the pages should be titled Evelyn or Eve I thought I would bring it here for further discussion. Currently the page is at Evelyn Jones, however there seems to be far more results in searches for Eve than Evelyn and the majority of cricket databases and sites are now using Eve. As Mpk662 states, when the page was created there was probably more for Evelyn, but given she had a break out year in 2021 and coverage of women's cricket has increased, the use of Eve seems to have taken it and become WP:COMMONNAME. What are other people's views, as I thought I'd bring it here instead of a WP:RM as it would likely speed up the process. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Good news!

All 2,906 MCC FC/LA/T20 cricketers have been completed! I've done about 1,000 in some detail, so please feel free to expand any and all! StickyWicket (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

England women's cricket team/Status of Wales section

This section has just been added to the England women's cricket team page and had a few conflicting thoughts on it. It's pretty much directly copied from the England cricket team page. This means that most of the writing and quotes in the section are, as far as I can tell, relevant to the status of the Welsh men's side. Wales is a more distinct team in women's cricket, and they compete in the county structure, so there is definitely a different story there - although I'm not sure if there is the same amount of debate/sources regarding England and Wales in women's cricket. I can see three options here - keep it as it is, copied from the men's page, rewrite it to make it more relevant to the women's teams, or remove the section/redirect to the men's page. I probably lean towards rewriting to at least acknowledge there is a slightly different debate in women's cricket (whether there are sources to back this up I am less sure), but I wanted to see what other opinions are first. Tagging the editor who added the section too, Hogyncymru, (hope you don't mind!) to hear your thoughts. Thanks. Mpk662 (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mpk662: The argument relates to the board which controls who's allowed to play, despite it being men's or Women's, the people in charge are England and Wales Cricket Board, therefore Women teams and mens teams should be reflected equally, unless women are regarded as lesser than men therefore less deserving of equal representation? (I hope this isn't the case), regardless though, same as the men's team, Women's team also represent the '& Wales' part of the board, which means that Wales is not allowed to compete because of the 'financial benefits' which seems bazar to me but that's what the status quo is. I would be fine with it being re-worded as long as it fairly portrays how the institution regards Wales' status. Hogyncymru (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the fantastic work that Mpk662 has done on a tonne of women's cricket articles, some of those comments are misplaced. On the other hand, the copy across of comments clearly made about the men's teams - albeit with the removal of Jones etc... as examples - is just lazy and doesn't reflect that there are subtle differences between the position of Wales in the two cases.

I think I'd have simply reverted it's addition in the first instance and asked for actual sources which show that women's cricket is being addressed in any of the cases quoted. So, there y'go: find sources which actually talk about women's cricket instead please. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't doubt Mpk662's work, I'm not criticising him at all, however, at no point did they specify 'Men' when they were criticised, if you can specify them referring to 'Men's Cricket' please let me know (Iv'e looked, there aren't any), that way I can delete it myself for you.. unless of course, England Cricket have a sexist stance against Women and that their status is lower than men? if this is the case, then this is very troubling don't you think? seeing Men as the default team and Women's as an afterthought or sidelined next to men?Hogyncymru (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I've not read all the citations, but perhaps 75% of them. Every time a player is discussed in the ones I've read they are male. The teams being discussed are clearly male. Glam don't even have a women's team, yet they form the basis for the discussion throughout as far as I can tell. At no point is the Welsh women's team playing in the domestic competitions mentioned. I don't have any doubt that when AMs are talking about a Welsh team that they are predominantly talking about men's cricket - especially in the time frame that the majority of these sources date from. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Assumptions? surely we shouldn't be guessing what they meant, they are clearly directing towards the board who are in charge of the team, but again if the default is 'men' doesn't this mean that the organisation is sexist?Hogyncymru (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately "seeing men as the default team and women's as an afterthought' is pretty much the story of women's sport as far as I can tell. So I'm pretty sure that the debates in the Welsh Assembly, for example, where solely to do with the men's team. The thing is that many of the things in the section are untrue for the women's team, because it's copied from the men. For example, I can't think of any Scottish players that represented England Women before Scotland became an ICC member, and it doesn't make sense to argue that the ECB should provide more fixtures for the Welsh national team when they do in women's cricket in the County Championship and Twenty20 Cup. Your point on them specifically referring to "men's cricket" doesn't really stand – pretty much everywhere, the current discourse is for the men's team to be "England" and women's team to be "England Women", for example (and that is also the current position on Wikipedia!). We can lament all day the fact that men's sport is the default and women's sport isn't that prominent (yet), but I seriously doubt that AMs know the ins and outs of the women's county cricket structure, and were referring to the much more prominent debate on the men's teams. I'm happy to have a look at rewriting the section over the next couple of days, and hopefully we can come to something we all agree on. Mpk662 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay I've rewritten the section, I hope it's acceptable to all interested! Thanks all for your input. Mpk662 (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that works. I've tweaked very marginally for clarity and the naming of the Senedd. I've done a little at Cricket in Wales, mainly to mention women as it happens. As it didn't. At all - just talked about English men's teams quite a lot. That almost certainly needs some more work fwiw - in particular the lists of players are a) only of men; b) quite repetitive. Hogyncymru: you might want to take a look at that article as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

On a slightly related note which flag do we use when a Welsh cricketer is listed as a squad member on club pages? EG Phil Salt being listed with the Red Dragon on the Islamabad and Adelaide Strikers pages, but with the flag of St.George for Lancashire and Manchester Originals? Topcardi (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Topcardi:, Salt should be listed with the St. George flag as he's represented England internationally, however welsh cricketers should be listed with the Red Dragon if they don't have international representation (see Aneurin Donald at Hampshire for example). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all. Hogyncymru (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Ernest Cowdrey

Hi all. I've just created an article on Colin Cowdrey's father. On Colin's page it claims his father played for Surrey Second XI and minor counties cricket for Berkshire. The ACS publication (Famous Cricketers No 72 - Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge, C. B. E.) even makes this claim, as does another source published 4 years ago. I can find no evidence from hours of searching that Ernest ever progressed beyong playing club cricket for Beddington. Can anyone confirm if this is the case? StickyWicket (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Searching CricketArchive, he played in one (3-day) f-c match, for Europeans v Indians at the Madras Cricket Club Ground, Chepauk, Madras beginning on 13th January, 1927. He scored 9 and 27*, and bowled in the first innings, taking 0-48 in 11 overs. The match was drawn. He also played in a one-day single-innings match for Madras Europeans v MCC on 21st January the same year, when MCC were touring India and Ceylon. He top-scored with 48, which given the MCC attack was Geary, Mercer, Boyes, Tate and Astill looks like a good performance. He didn't bowl. The match was drawn. Apart from that, the only matches I could find were for Whitgift Grammar School, one for the 2nd XI in 1916 and then for the 1st XI between 1917 and 1920 inclusive. So it doesn't look as though he ever played for Surrey 2nds or for Berkshire. It would be worth mentioning in the article that Colin's initials being MCC was not a coincidince. I remember reading in Colin's autobiography that his father did it deliberately. JH (talk page) 12:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the initials weren't a coincidence at all. I don't recall where I read it, but it could have been one of Colin's obituaries. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicions re Surrey and Berkshire. His Wisden obituary mentions the MCC initials too, I'll get round to adding it in the next few days. And there's some info in there about him coaching the young Colin. Thanks again! StickyWicket (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Azeem Rafiq

So, Azeem Rafiq is obviously very much in the news. I've done some emergency work on the article just now because it was pretty poor and very out of date, but this could use as much input as possible (partly to catch my inevitable typing errors). It's not attracted too much in the way of unhelpful editing, which is positive, but there are big gaps that we should really try and fill in his career - and then there's the massive amount of media coverage over the last year and a bit that really does need doing justice. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me if it has already been discussed elsewhere, but maybe a standalone article is in need regarding the whole fallout with the chairman resigning amongst other things. CreativeNorth (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, both Lugnuts and myself have had that thought as well. It led Radio 4's 6pm news bulletin last night and with the appearances in parliament will probably rumble on for a while. We need to start with the right levels of details in Rafiq and YCCC's articles I imagine though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there's more than enough now to have a stand-alone article, with other former England players being named, impact on YCCC, changing of fixtures for next summer, etc, etc. @Blue Square Thing: - did you say you had something prepared to start with? I know you've done the legwork on Rafiq's article, so I don't want to take credit for this. Even if it's just a few lines, might be worth pushing it into the main article space with so much coverage right now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have anything ready to go, but I was considering working on the Rafiq article and some of the surrounding ones over the next few days. The most important thing for now is that we have a better Rafiq one as it, quite rightly, will presumably be getting a tonne of traffic. In terms of news sources, I don't have access to Times or Torygraph paywalls, so if anyone does then that might be an interesting source of articles to balance (from a political perspective - I doubt they're defending Yorkshire) the Guardian ones that everyone has access to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd imagine covering it in his article and the Yorkshire article would be sufficient. StickyWicket (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Currently I'd agree with StickyWicket, but if it blows up into an ECB/large number of counties issue (which it may well do) then it's likely going to be sufficient for an article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of media coverage and it's going to go to the select committee within a fortnight which I imagine will create more. As Lugnuts said elsewhere, if we can have an article on the use of a piece of sandpaper, then why not this? Is this less important? (I know that's a very loaded statement, but given the coverage and the other people now raising a similar issue with Yorks, it does seem like there's possibly enough).

But his article is certainly the place to start. Lets see what we get to there and then see if a split is required. I'm still churning through his earlier career Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I feel currently that with the current length of the Azeem Rafiq article what is currently known (and admittedly that's probably not even 5% of what it will be) it can all currently be included in his article. Obviously if more and more is leaked, and the select committee revelations are particularly explosive an article may well be sufficient (as I personally think it will include the ECB in detail). More and more may well come out about other counties as well, but atm that's just WP:CRYSTAL. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyone got a Telegraph log in? I've used my free allowance for the week/month/whatever and this article about Gary Ballance calling people Kevin might be helpful if anyone wanted to add to his own page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If you weren't aware, you can right-click on any Telegraph article, select "view page source" and find the content on the article half-way down (albeit without any line-breaks, so it's a bit of a pain to read). Most pay-wall sites manage to avoid displaying the article in their code, but for some reason the Telegraph haven't fixed that yet. HornetMike (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yorkshire County Cricket Club racism scandal has been created, though I've not checked it yet... Spike 'em (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be an incredibly in depth article, with the amount of information still to come out though I worry about the length of the article, a lot of what's in there may well be undue or over detailed, perhaps needs combing through. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That article seems to have some questionable possible BLP violations, as it's making accusations against people such as Vaughan which seems to violate WP:BLPCRIME (as the article is strongly implying he's guilty, despite not being found so). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the section about Vaughan is entirely accurate - for example, I don't think I've read anything that has stated clearly that he has been named in the report. I know I read that he declined to be interviewed by the enquiry, which in itself is probably worth saying - iirc he has said that he declined because he hadn't been given enough notice. A lot of this stuff needs very careful handling and the lack of transparency is an issue.

The enquiry apparently felt it was unable to come to conclusions on many (I think) of the 43* allegations because people refused or were unable to give evidence to it.

Rafiq never enumerated his allegations and his people say that he is unsure where the number 43 comes from

On the other hand, it's possibly worth mentioning that Vaughan's denial was in his paid-for column for the Daily Telegraph. Certainly other writers have noted that and the power imbalance it implies.

I'm not a fan of the placement of the huge quote from Ballance either fwiw. I'm not sure that's quite the emphasis that I'd put on this article. But there you go. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It's probably worth stating in the Ballance section that the accusation involving him was one of the 43 or however many that wasn't upheld as well in the report. Also, I think I read in one of Dobell's articles that Vaughan is named in the report, and think I remember that in Vaughan's "I'm not a racist" puff piece in the Telegraph he said he is named in the report as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

All the above are valid, but when I wrote the article, it didn't seem to violate BLPCRIME to me, but then, I cannot see the wood for the trees in this. If you believe it needs changing, then please do so under WP:BOLD, I'd rather that than it linger on with tags all over the place. Can I say that I did not intend to be biased to any side, and I have tried to balance out the article? If it fails to do so, then please change it, as I have spent so long staring at it, that I just don't see it with fresh eyes like other editors can. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)