Cricket Project‑class | ||||||||||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
article length of several English players
There are a number of English player Articles that I believe contain excessive detail of subsection for every international series played and often down to describing every single innings. I edit a variety of sports and the details are generally limited to career highlights and major lowlights. Examples:
Compare it to Michael Clarke (cricketer) or Virat Kohli. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this be a dull place if all editors thought the same and all articles were the same? Why not concentrate on the many articles that need improvement, rather than ones that (in your view) have been "improved" too far? Johnlp (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- no, articles that are too long will never make good articles, they're also make them difficult to read and navigate. Too much information makes it worse. Do you think we should describe every single match a football or tennis player plays should be covered? LibStar (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that they are excessive - and this is one of the things that makes them very poor articles which need improvement in my view. If a project can't get the key articles that people will be looking at on a regular basis right then it's a joke. I took it up with an editor who added a lot of that detail over the last year or so and was told I was wrong. There needs to be a much more effective summary job done - Adam Gilchrist is an example of an article that made FA status with this diff in 2007 and had much less detail in than these. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Lib - there aren't that many editors who know enough about the subject area here to get involved in working on one of the biographies you've listed. Add to that small group, even fewer will have the time and/or effort to spend in improving them. I agree, the Joe Root article looks bad, my main concern being at least a dozen sections with little, or no references. But any improvements are more than welcomed, even if it's just cutting the dross to leave the cream. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement that the rambling lists of scores with no context make for poor articles (and have made a similar point in #Man of the Match awards discussion above). It is on my list of things to do, but I'm a bit rubbish with writing long sections of prose so have never got round to it! Spike 'em (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's some more:
LibStar (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Page moves
Hi. There are a couple of current page move discussions:
Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Some articles are incomplete at the moment
I suggest anyone to complete the full five wicket haul list at the Sinhalese Sports Club Ground.It has not been updated for a quite long time as this list has about 50+ fifers.Thank you.Abishe (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Surely that's not an encyclopaedic topic? A list of five-fors according to the ground they were taken at seems utterly ridiculous to me. Delete. – PeeJay 18:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Crazy, eh? Harrias talk 20:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- The equivalent Headingley one is particularly special. Johnlp (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, especially since the table seems to think it's talking about McLean Park. – PeeJay 21:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- And the source doesn't match the year, but is actually for the 1981 Headingley Test, where Botham & Willis got fifers. Yet neither are listed on this table..... Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- I almost started editing it, but feel that would give it some legitimacy I feel it doesn't deserve. Is there a WP:SLICEANDDICE guideline to invoke here? Spike 'em (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- And the source doesn't match the year, but is actually for the 1981 Headingley Test, where Botham & Willis got fifers. Yet neither are listed on this table..... Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, especially since the table seems to think it's talking about McLean Park. – PeeJay 21:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- The equivalent Headingley one is particularly special. Johnlp (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- I can see the arguements for not having them, but on the other hand, at least one of them is a Featured List. And the first couple of ones from Australia look like they could easily be FL in the future too. Swings and roundabouts, I guess. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
First instinct: delete. Second instinct: probably doing no harm and not obviously nn and if ppl want to work them up, fine. But the Headingly one (and any others in a similar condition) should be deleted or improved or redirected pronto. That's just misleading. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Is it right to disambiguate the two Ollie Robinsons by their county when we have other means of disambiguating? They won't always play for their respective current teams, and if they ever end up on the same team we'll have to move them anyway, so surely it makes sense to move Ollie Robinson (Sussex cricketer) to Ollie Robinson (cricketer, born 1993), and Ollie Robinson (Kent cricketer) to Ollie Robinson (cricketer, born 1998)? – PeeJay 18:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- At the moment the teams are the most logical - people are more likely to think "Oh yes, he plays for Sussex." than "Oh yes, he was born in 1993." WP:NCPDAB gives some guidance. Harrias talk 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- There was a discussion before about this, and people tended to think that nationalities/teams were better than birth years, as most people would more likely be searching for the birth year. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Joseph2302 you've contradicted yourself, so I'm not sure which argument you're supporting. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- There was a discussion before about this, and people tended to think that nationalities/teams were better than birth years, as most people would more likely be searching for the birth year. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- And the average reader will probably just put "Ollie Robinson" into the search box, not knowing prehaps the ins and outs of how we title pages. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
"Bodyline" or "bodyline"
I've always thought of the tactic as Bodyline, with a capital. And indeed, when Bodyline passed FAC and got its shiny star, that's how the article looked. Subsequently, someone has changed all the incidences of the word that don't begin a sentence to a lower case b, and I'd like consensus here on which we should go with. (I'll post at the article talk, too). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've just looked at a couple of sources in the article and they appear mixed between Bodyline and bodyline. My tendency would be towards Bodyline. – PeeJay 11:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Helpful. Let's get consensus and then go for consistency. Please will you note your view below, so it's really easy peasy to assess consensus? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- B --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Both, depending on context without looking at any references my gut feel would be "Bodyline" for the historical cause celebre, and "bodyline" for the tactic from a cricket POV. So "Douglas Jardine captained England during the Bodyline controversy of 1932/3. The West Indies team of the 1980s often bowled bodyline balls". Bowling methods tend not to take a capital letter, not even a chinaman.Le Deluge (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Both, per Le Deluge The overall controversy would have a captial B, while the tatic would use a lowercase b. Compare the opening line of the second paragraph of the article in question, and it would not be correct to use a captial B in that case. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Both: I previously would have said B in all contexts, but having read what Le Deluge has written, realise that this makes much more sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Both A bit late to the party on this one but I agree with the sound reasoning of Le Deluge. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyone good with Statsguru?
The list in Geoffrey_Boycott#Opening_partners is so flawed (as it admits) it's probably worth removing all the stats and leaving a list of names, which is a bit of a shame. Anyone good enough with Statsguru to get round the problem, without hitting OR problems? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- I came up with a list of all opening partnerships in games involving Boycott the other day (was comparing him to Cook). I got a list which included partnerships that didn't include him (so innings where he did play, but didn't open), is it OR to just remove those? Spike 'em (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is this suitable? It shows all 23 England opening partnerships that happened in Tests that our Geoff played. 16 involve him, so we need to disregard the other 7. He only batted in middle order in 1 game, the rest are times he either retired hurt after opening, or didn't bat in the second innings. Spike 'em (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I think either of these does it nicely. Ignoring the odd line doesn't feel too much like OR. Not like deducting numbers / recalculating. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Optimisation of the cricket team template
There is a discussion regarding {{infobox cricket team}} that could use your input. Please join in the conversation here. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have left my comments there. I encourage others to do the same. Regards – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
First day of the forthcoming Ashes - in UTC
Play is due to run on day one of the Ashes from morning to evening on November 23, Australia time.
I presume that straddles two days in UTC. Is it mostly November 24 in UTC?
Trying to come up with something for Main page, and 23 November is worth avoiding if possible. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- By November, Brisbane's going to be 11 hours ahead of UTC/GMT. So 11.00am there would be 00.00 UTC, and if play finishes at 18.00 it'd be 07.00 UTC, all on 23 November. So avoidance may be difficult. Johnlp (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Bugger. OK. Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Do the Last Man Stands Cricket has international recognition and reputation at present?
I just wanted to clarify that whether Last Man Stands' Cricket is popular across almost every countries or not?I just created a draft page which is not organized according to guidelines but take a look at it.Last Man Stands cricketAnyone can create article regarding this topic as I couldn't find adequate resources.But on the other hand,I am not quite sure about the entire history and popularity of this form of cricket.I just read about this form of cricket in newspapers,other sources in Sri Lanka. Abishe (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Though it's said to have originated in England, I must admit that I've never heard of it. I'm a bit doubtful about the claim "Last Man Stands is the most growing amateur cricket league in the world", even though the source that you cite may say that. JH (talk page) 18:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- There's more detail on it here: http://www.thecricketer.com/default.aspx?pageid=1223&topicid=42702&catid=71 Richard3120 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I know quite a few people from my cricket club who play it and have seen it played in Regent's Park, though never taken part myself. I'm sure I've seen discussions on here before that have seen content on LMS deleted, but can't remember where / when / why. The article needs more links to establish notability and not just be an attempt at promotion. 6-a-side cricket is also popular, so maybe create an article about small sided cricket and include LMS as one of the variants, in a similar vein to Five-a-side football. The draft article needs grammar tidied up. Spike 'em (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Shivnarine Chanderpaul's name in Hindi/Tamil
I noticed that there were some edit conflicts regarding the issue that whether [1] Chanderpaul is an actual Guyanese origin cricketer or a Tamilan cricketer.One anonymous user has tried to say that Chanderpaul is a Tamilan and he is not from Hindi origin.I just undone the edit of the unregistered User. Abishe (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Remove both. Chanderpaul comes from a part of the world where they speak English. We should not include either unless someone provides RS saying that he uses it. We don't and wouldn't include Monty Panesar's name in any script other than English, because he's English, albeit of Punjabi/Sikh background. Chanderpaul was born in Guyana so I'd support removing both Tamil and Hindi. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Remove both per Harrias' addendum to Dweller's law. Harrias talk 09:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Draftification of over 500 cricket biographies
Due to some alleged (I haven't looked into this myself) poor work in creating articles from User:02blythed, a large number of articles that user has created or expanded have been taken out of mainspace and into draft space. This includes numerous international Test cricketers. I don't have time to look into this too much myself, but they are all included in Category:Draftspace cricket articles by 02blythed. Harrias talk 11:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I would have hoped that @DrStrauss: would have consulted this project before undertaking this action, but hopefully that user is still planning to consult with us, as advised at the Administrators' noticeboard discussion. Harrias talk 11:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Bloody hell. We'll need to roll our sleeves up. Incidentally, I saw a passing comment in the AN discussion about Cricket Archive. I'm not sure what's wrong with using them as a source. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Erm, I don't get it. What policy would demand that Draft:Akbar_Ansari, the second article I checked, be draftified? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Can't wait. Just found one of a cricketer who played 71 Test matches and the biog includes a string of reliable source references. Draft:Chris Martin (cricketer). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes - I think there may need to be some distinction drawn between crappy stubs and ones that have been worked on by someone. Even if they're still stubs they might be acceptable stubs (given that the notability criteria isn't changing anytime soon) Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why this WikiProject wasn't notified of the discussion? What was so very pressing about doing this for articles, many of which are up to 10 years old, before we could weigh in? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Dweller: I'd just written a lengthy message but there was an edit conflict (presumably with you) and I stupidly refreshed and have lost it. I'll draft it out in Word again... DrStrauss talk 12:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Great. Can't wait, cos the Chris Martin article is 12 years old, has plenty of good citations to demonstrate notability and the first edit was by an IP. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi,
- Firstly I apologise for accidentally categorising some articles which didn’t fall under the remit of the discussion at WP:AN. There isn’t a “created by” filter in AWB so I made some regex filters which sought out the hallmarks of the articles in question. About 15 ones were categorised but were not moved as I went through each one individually to check. As for Hack’s assertion that this is
an abuse of AWB
I’d say that it isn’t because I was implementing community consensus from a closed WP:AN discussion, secondly, I didn’t actually move the pages with AWB, I did that manually, and thirdly, none of the actions I have taken have contravened the recent WP:ARBCOM case on AWB, nor violated the WP:AWB/UM.
- Secondly, I’d like to put forward an explanation of the original rationale. Many of the articles were WP:BLPs which means that information must have multiple, reliable sources, whether they’re 10 minutes old or 10 years old. While CrickInfo etcetera may have correct statistics on cricketers’ careers, they do not confer notability. WP:ATHLETE offers deference to WP:GNG and a recent WP:RfC (link) solidified the community consensus that WP:GNG supersedes subject-specific notability guidelines (except WP:PROF, about which a reform discussion is currently taking place). While the cricketers are probably notable per WP:ATHLETE and many of them per WP:GNG, we need to remember that Wikipedia isn’t a directory. Many of 02blythed’s articles were mere directory entries and besmirched the good name of this WikiProject.
- Finally, please don’t take this a victimisation of WikiProject Cricket, I myself am a cricket fan but I am just implementing both consensus and quality guidelines.
- Why didn't anyone notify the WikiProject of the discussion at any stage? It's the most obvious thing to do. There was no emergency here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, DrStrauss, you've done a terrible job of this. The first half dozen articles I've checked, all of them have 2 or more sources. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Dweller: it might be an idea to wait until we've finished here before reverting e.g. this. That doesn't fall into the category you speak of. DrStrauss talk 13:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also, I wouldn't say I did a
terrible
job. I think it went pretty well bar the 15-or-so ones that I self-reverted (and Chis Martin). DrStrauss talk 13:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)- I wasn't going to mention James Allen, but as you have, it's further proof of you doing a terrible job. There's no BLP imperative there - the bloke's been dead for 60 years. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you please save us a lot of time and use the tool to revert yourself on anyone who is dead? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- How about this one? Andy Sandham. One of cricket history's greats. The first man to make a triple hundred in a Test match. The article has 3 reliable sources, was created by Loganberry and the man has been dead for 35 years. Please accept you've made a mess of this and help clear it up. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Dweller: sure, on it. Not the BLPs though. DrStrauss talk 13:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Dweller: I can get you a list of people whose articles contain "died" or "dead". Unfortunately many of them don't have the living parameter. DrStrauss talk 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Here are ones containing "died":
- Draft:Abbas Khan (cricketer)
- Draft:Tom Abel (cricketer)
- Draft:William Abel
- Draft:William Abell (cricketer)
- Draft:Donald Adams (cricketer)
- Draft:Geoffrey Adams (cricketer)
- Draft:Sidney Adams
- Draft:William Adams (cricketer)
- Draft:Alfred Adcock
- Draft:Joseph Adcock
- Draft:Charles Adderley (cricketer)
- Draft:Charles Addis
- Draft:Charles Agar (cricketer)
- Draft:Thomas Ainscough
- Draft:Jerry Ainsworth
- Draft:Ralph Alderson
- Draft:Ernest Alderwick
- Draft:Frederick Alexander (cricketer)
- Draft:John Allan (cricketer)
- Draft:Charles Allen (cricketer)
- Draft:Cecil Allenby
- Draft:Richard Allsop
- Draft:Frederic Allsopp
- Draft:Herbert Allsopp
- Draft:Hampden Alpass
- Draft:Josceline Amherst
- Draft:Clifford Andrews
- Draft:Rupert Anson
- Draft:Thomas Anson (cricketer)
- Draft:Alexander Anstruther
- Draft:George Anthony (cricketer)
- Draft:Geoffrey Antrobus
- Draft:John Antrobus (cricketer)
- Draft:Arthur Appleby
- Draft:Francis Appleyard
- Draft:Arthur Archdale
- Draft:Audley Archdall
- Draft:Osmond Ardagh
- Draft:Ashish Bagai
- Draft:William Copeland
- Draft:Robert Dick (cricketer)
- Draft:Stell Haggas
- Draft:Kuntal Chandra
- Draft:Bob Lambert (cricketer)
- Draft:Arthur Seccull
- Draft:Tamim Bashir
DrStrauss talk 13:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- It would also be wise to revert the ones that were previously kept at AFD: Draft talk:P. H. Barnes A second AFD or DRV (and not draftification) is the way to challenge pages like this. Thincat (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. This is a step in the right direction. If you pop those articles back into mainspace and remove the category (which should be a hidden one, btw) from them, and maybe trawl the subcats of Category:Deaths by year, that'd be a good start. We can then work through what's left and see which ones (like this) do need work, because none of us would deny that there is a problem: BLPs with 0 or 1 reliable source. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Here's the thread at WP:AN. The board that states "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators" Maybe an active admin would have spotted it? Thankfully, the issue of this user's poor-quality work, that was raised before with the project, has now been addressed. But don't worry, they've not been mass-deleted, just moved into draft. So if anyone has the time and/or effort to clean up the mess, then they are welcome to get stuck in. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Dweller: I've got up to #32 in the dead list but have something IRL to attend to. As you say, let's not pretend that the majority of these articles are deficient and need fixing. Particularly the Bangladeshi stubs, those seem exceptionally lacking. DrStrauss talk 15:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Appreciate that. We'll sort it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- It would be wise to move quickly because in the view of some editors (and admins) some of the pages still in draft space may qualify for immediate WP:G13 deletion ("have not been edited (excluding bot edits and maintenance actions such as tagging) in over six months"). However, if any are deleted in this way they may be restored by requesting at WP:REFUND. Thincat (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thincat, no risk of that. The AN thread explicitly stated that they were there to be improved so that would be an issue for February 2018 :P DrStrauss talk 16:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- And most of the articles are utter turd, so it's no issue if they were G13'd. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that Draft:Ian Billcliff was not created by the user in question, so checked all other international cricketers I could spot in the list that have been made a draft (excluding Bangladeshis) ... all of the biographies below were created by someone else;
- Draft:Ian Billcliff
- Draft:Umar Bhatti
- Draft:Chris Foggo
- Draft:Sunil Dhaniram
- Draft:Corey Collymore
- Draft:Austin Codrington
- Draft:Lionel Cann
- Draft:Stefan Kelly
- Draft:Malachi Jones
- Draft:Kevin Hurdle
- Draft:Barry Milburn
- Draft:Claude Henderson
- Draft:Dean Minors
- Draft:Asif Mulla
- Draft:Henry Osinde
- Draft:Steven Outerbridge
- Draft:Irving Romaine
- Can these please be moved back. I'm sure there are others as well. Jevansen (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- ... and a bot has been "commenting out" categories so these need restoring as well. So, I note that some of the articles draftified were not at all as described at the AN discussion and so did not have the blessing of any consensus there. Thincat (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- ... and redirects to the draftified pages have been deleted because they were pointing to "deleted" pages. Thincat (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @DrStrauss: – now that the bot has commented out the categories in lots of these drafts, do you have a quick way we can find them all, as they are no longer all in the category you created. Could you provide a full and comprehensive list for us please. Harrias talk 06:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Harrias: link to advanced search. Hack (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- As a general rule, the only non Bangladesh articles that Blyth created had surnames beginning with A. I expect as many as 50 articles not created by him were moved, in addition to deceased cricketers and properly sourced non stubs already discussed. This has not been done well. Jevansen (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Harrias: link to advanced search. Hack (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @DrStrauss: – now that the bot has commented out the categories in lots of these drafts, do you have a quick way we can find them all, as they are no longer all in the category you created. Could you provide a full and comprehensive list for us please. Harrias talk 06:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've done a few of those above that Jevansen posted, unfortunately, the authors are all inactive and I'm not sure these kind of articles are on any watchlists, so we'll have to look deeper to find the rest. —SpacemanSpiff 07:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It really wasn't a difficult task to identify the articles to review in the first place, it was made a lot harder than it should have been. I'm haven't used AWB for some time (only the script version), but my understanding if you can paste article names into the list box, in which case a simple check of this widely used tool would have revealed all of the articles the user has created. At the very least you have a list for crosschecking. Jevansen (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- This link will show all mainspace and draftspace article created. Hack (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The move log also is a way of finding the articles draftified and has the advantage of (I think) including any subsequently speedy deleted under WP:G13. People are entitled to disregard draftification/refund when making G13 requests and acting on them although it is not considered best practice.[2] Thincat (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I've moved somewhere in the region of 100 of the articles back to mainspace now. I think most of what is left is genuinely problematic stuff, though I've probably missed a couple. To be fair, even a lot of what I moved back is stuff that does need work, but wasn't covered by the AN discussion. We're annoyed at these moves, but we need to be aware that there is a genuine problem here that we need to fix. Harrias talk 09:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for all this – I saw what you had been doing when I was checking the original move log (see my comment above). I think none of the drafts were speedy deleted. Thincat (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I have consulted the admin who deleted some/most/all of the redirects. See User talk:Malcolmxl5#Deleted redirects. He is trying to help but it seems there may be no systematic way of restoring these. Thincat (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've worked my way through my deletion log for yesterday and have restored about 30 redirects where I found that the target pages had been moved back to mainspace. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Malcolmxl5 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- About 52 redirects have now been restored or recreated. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Another eight redirects have been restored. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Malcolmxl5 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have created a list of redirects that were deleted when articles were moved to draftspace at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Deleted cricket article redirects. About half have now been restored or recreated as articles have been moved back to mainspace. The remaining redirects (the red links) can also be restored or recreated as and when the target articles are returned to mainspace. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
If you're looking to help
- Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Draftspace cricket articles by 02blythed and pick an article
- Check it has at least two reliable sources
- Move it from Draft space to Article space and uncheck leave redirect behind
- Remove the 02blythed category
Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note that it wasn't just about sources, per the original AN thread. It was also about article quality. Most of the articles created by this user had no internal wikilinking (teams, cricket terms, etc) and no categories. Any of these issues not addressed will be moved back into draft. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's not true. The consensus was given for BLP compliance/notability reasons, which is nothing to do with quality. If you want to improve the quality of the articles, edit them, don't move them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're wrong. If you'd participated in the discussion at the time, you could have clarified that, but you didn't. So to avoid that, just clean up the article before you move it. Simple. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I can read an AN discussion without having participated in it. I'm very happy for you to take whatever steps you like to avoid "disruption from this user", meaning me. I'm very well known on Wikipedia for being highly disruptive. You'd better now before my disruptive behaviour gets out of hand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: as this project was never notified of that discussion, it is not helpful to suggest that our opinions aren't valid as we didn't participate. I do agree that some of the articles need more than just referencing checks, but Dweller's suggestion is a great place to start work. You are absolutely correct that the Bangladeshi cricketers articles in particular, but others too, aren't really even worth the work to save. But there was a lot of collateral damage in the process that is. I think I caught and saved most of it, but there was certainly other stuff in there that needed little more than some referencing upgrades. Harrias talk 13:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well if an active admin was about who is involved in this project, maybe they could have notified people. But they didn't. I also raised the issue about this users incredibly poor work some months back, but it was pretty much ignored. I should have gone to AN instead like Dr S did so people would listen. I'm glad Dweller has admitted being disruptive - that'll be very handy to note for the future. I'll let you all get back to wiping 02blythed's backside. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well someone needs to clean the shit up, given that all you seem to want to do is point at it and shout. Harrias talk 13:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd hardly say that the previous discussion (archive 81 up at the top - search for 02blythed if you need to) was pretty much ignored Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're wrong. If you'd participated in the discussion at the time, you could have clarified that, but you didn't. So to avoid that, just clean up the article before you move it. Simple. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's not true. The consensus was given for BLP compliance/notability reasons, which is nothing to do with quality. If you want to improve the quality of the articles, edit them, don't move them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note that it wasn't just about sources, per the original AN thread. It was also about article quality. Most of the articles created by this user had no internal wikilinking (teams, cricket terms, etc) and no categories. Any of these issues not addressed will be moved back into draft. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Dweller: – I hope you don't mind: I edited your list to refer to a page I created with what is hopefully all the articles in question. Harrias talk 15:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Now now people calm down, no need to get hot. Harrias, fair trout by the way :) DrStrauss talk 17:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dweller:. Thanks for letting me know about Argent (Middlesex cricketer), although it was originally a 02blythed stub (I only renamed it). I've found the relevant match in S&BII so, in case it is true that there are serious objections to CA (which seems to be inferred at ANI), we do now have an undeniably reputable source in that article at least. Jack | talk page 18:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleting drafts
Why are people deleting redirects from draftspace? WP:RDRAFT is pretty clear that these redirects should be kept. Hack (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- THe ones I deleted weren't actually drafts, they should never have been moved to draft space, therefore deletion seems logical. I think the same holds for many (if not all) that were deleted by Harrias. —SpacemanSpiff 03:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Batting average templates
Following are the two templates which I think don't serve any purpose. They were used for navigation purposes but with the deletion of the page List of cricket batting averages they are reductant now. Continuously updating them after every match is tiresome. Also, they are based on 20 innings criteria which is too inclusive.
- Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40
- Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50
Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Test template: I think this is good/important, but we used to have a consensus (I think) to exclude current players from such things, on the basis that it's too ephemeral and the decline lots of players suffer before they end their career makes including current players invidious and pointless. If we excluded current players, that would deal with your problem of updating. In terms of serving purpose, I'd have it as a nav template on those players' biogs. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- ODI one: seems rather random. Why 40? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- If it were 50 and completed careers only, there'd only be three players on it! Harrias talk 10:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's not really a good reason for Wikipedia to focus on a random figure. Why 40? Not 35? Not 45? Not 41.14. Do we have RS that say a completed career average of above 40 in ODI is the bee's knees? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, but that applies equally to the Test list; why 50? Just because it is a nicer round number? Harrias talk 10:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Google shows lots of RS discussing 50 as a benchmark for all-time quality. Here's just one example, ironically arguing that we should shift and consider 55 the new 50, but in so doing demonstrating that that is exactly how cricket fans perceive the mark: [3] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, but that applies equally to the Test list; why 50? Just because it is a nicer round number? Harrias talk 10:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's not really a good reason for Wikipedia to focus on a random figure. Why 40? Not 35? Not 45? Not 41.14. Do we have RS that say a completed career average of above 40 in ODI is the bee's knees? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with you. We should atleast remove current players.Greenbörg (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- If it were 50 and completed careers only, there'd only be three players on it! Harrias talk 10:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
We also have this in the Don Bradman FA quality biography (see chart on right), which is the top 10. I've just updated it, to dump Sanga for Voges:
Don Bradman (AUS) | 99.94
|
Adam Voges (AUS) | 61.87
|
Graeme Pollock (RSA) | 60.97
|
George Headley (WI) | 60.83
|
Herbert Sutcliffe (ENG) | 60.73
|
Eddie Paynter (ENG) | 59.23
|
Ken Barrington (ENG) | 58.67
|
Everton Weekes (WI) | 58.61
|
Wally Hammond (ENG) | 58.45
|
Garfield Sobers (WI) | 57.78
|
Source: Cricinfo Qualification: 20 completed innings, career completed. |
--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- The ODI batting averages template still has issues. Greenbörg (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd delete the ODI one. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking through some of the 02blythed entries in the draft list, I notice that CricketArchive is named in some as an external link and that it carries a "subscription required" notice. This breaches WP:ELREG. I suggest that the subscription notice is removed from all articles because it is pointless and doesn't help anyone, especially if, as I am (perhaps reliably) informed they will do, CA terminates subscription next year. Jack | talk page 18:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- If it was used as a reference, it can be used as an inline citation, particularly where CA has information that CI does not include. Hack (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. We can't just remove the subscription notice and pretend it isn't the case. If CA removes the need for subscriptions, fine, we'll get rid of it. But otherwise, the only way to comply with WP:ELREG is to remove CricketArchive as an external link. As Hack says, it is perfectly acceptable as an inline reference. Harrias talk 18:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Cricket at the Olympics at AfD
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Now withdrawn by the nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Another problem on the 02blythed front
See here. I've written to User:DrStrauss for him to resolve.
All the Pakistani players whose names begin with "Aa" have either been moved back to article space or sent to WP:MfD. Jack | talk page 13:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)