Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

The current discussion of CCOTM is ?.

History of US cricket

Greetings All! I'recently done a relatively bold edit of the History of United States cricket article. I listed it on the main project page, but would love some input from other editors. Any help that can be offered is much appreciated. I'm planning on putting it up for general peer review in the next week or two, depending on project members' views.--Eva ^bd 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Article has been reviewed and rated for quality and importance. Good work, Eva. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Eva ^bd 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

History of the English Cricket Team

This is linked from the 'England Cricket Team' page and it seems an important one to do. The originator of it did a good job on about half the decades and I'm going to fill in something for the others just to fill the blanks. If someone could have a look at it and add a few more points and details wherever they see fit that would be great. Nick mallory 08:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I started work a couple of years ago on a detailed 'English cricket team in the XXXXs' series (see User:Ngb/English cricket team in the 2000s for the beginnings of my first effort): I don't really have time to work on this right now, but if anyone wants to take it on you'd be more than welcome. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 08:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

These should all be renamed "England cricket team" per our discussions above. Plenty of England players over time have not been English. --Dweller 09:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a proper look if/when I have time, but have had a quick shufti at the first couple of sections. A few thoughts. It's rather odd that the first section is entitled "1860-1900", and has a couple of pictures of English touring teams from pre Test days, when the actual text only begins with the first Test in 1877. There should either be some text about pre-Test touring sides, or the section title and the pictures should be changed. If in the introductory paragraph just two great England players are going to be mentioned by name, I'm not sure that Botham should be one of them. Actually, I'm not even sure that Grace should be the other, since he didn't play his first Test till he was already past his best and carried on too long, so that his Test record is comparatively modest. He's a far less significant figure in Tests than he is in first-class cricket as a whole. I think it's probably simplest not to mention any individuals by name in the introduction. JH (talk page) 09:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not saying that it's even half done, but it's all a good start. It'll all change radically over time like everything else. I was just pointing out the fact that it seems quite an important page and it had some blanks in. I've written a bit of guff now to fill in the missing later decades anyway but anyone's additions would be a great bonus. As to what it's called, I'm just going by what the page is called now, it should England but I don't feel it's my place to change it. `Nick mallory 10:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely remove the two names as per JH and call it England team (in fact, I've done that). If only two names are going to be given in the intro, they should be Rhodes and Trueman; or Sutcliffe and Hutton; or Jackson and Vaughan; or Hirst and Boycott; or Hawke and Illingworth; or Verity and Close; or Ulyett and Hoggard; or Emmett and Bowes; etc.  ;-)

The first section should be titled 1859 to 1900 depending on the end date but we really ought to go back to 1845 when the All-England Eleven was founded as this team and its UEE rival combined in 1859 to form the first England international team: see England cricket team in North America in 1859. I would have 1845 to 1876, then 1877 to 1900 as the first two sections.

Nearly all the stuff about WG in the first section is completely irrelevant and should be taken out: the article is about England, not about WG playing for Gloucestershire. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"If only two names are going to be given in the intro, they should be Rhodes and Trueman; or Sutcliffe and Hutton; or Jackson and Vaughan; or Hirst and Boycott; or Hawke and Illingworth; or Verity and Close; or Ulyett and Hoggard; or Emmett and Bowes; etc.  ;-)" Or Booth and Binks. ;-0 Johnlp 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But, though he's a wicketkeeper whose name begins with B, perhaps Richard Blakey would be going too far for even the most patriotic of Yorkshiremen. :) JH (talk page) 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, did you see the South Africa debacle? I may take up squash. There may not be too much more history to write about in the future if we keep playing like that. 124.183.228.151 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the article should be going into so much detail on individual series. I think it would be better to instead include links to The Ashes and to the articles that already exist on individual Test series (admittedly some of those are still stubs). We don't want too much duplication of material. JH (talk page) 09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but it's only a couple of lines on each series on the mid twentieth century decades I'm filling in, and I think it gives a useful overview. Someone new to the subject would go to the England Team page, then follow the link to the history page, then find something which interests them or is relevant to what they want and go to the series page in question, when they all exist I suppose. It would be easy to link them from this page. A quick summary just gives the result and a few names of outstanding performers really. If someone just wants a quick history of the whole thing then this page is good I think.

I haven't touched the longer stuff (e.g. up to the end of the Golden Age and then from 1990 to date) which was done before I looked at the page, that may be too long, I wouldn't like to judge. I'm just filling in the 1910 - 1980 stuff which hadn't really been covered at all, apart from Bodyline. If someone was a new fan, unlikely after South Africa last night, they might know nothing of England's history and this gives them a place to start. A read of this page and they'd have a pretty good idea of some major players, series and events. As I said, I didn't start this page, I'm just filling in the gaps. I'll leave it to the more experienced chaps here to hone it as they see fit in time. Nick mallory 09:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideally the dates e.g. 1934 or 1974/75 in the article could be linked to the article which goes through that tour or series in real detail. This history page just gives a brief into to the whole thing. Nick mallory 04:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cricketers killed in War

Is there an article about the cricketers killed in the First and Second world wars - and others? There's enough to make a good article - Percy Jeeves, Major Booth, Tibby Cotter, Hedley Verity etc - plus Frank Chester losing an arm of course. I'll do one tomorrow if no-one objects. Nick mallory 05:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's up to you, but I would imagine such a list would get deleted. After all, you could make a list of any collection of people who were killed in any major war. We all know lots of people of all types were killed in the First World War. What's special about cricketers to suggest they would deserve such a list? It reminds me of Causes of death of England national cricket captains, which had a pretty clear consensus to delete it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Stephen, I still think it's an interesting idea though, especially with the number killed in the first world war. If I can be bothered I'll give it a go, trying to emphasise the end of the golden age and lost generation bit. If I chuck in enough links and references and avoid the word 'list' I think I can do something which will pass muster. It strikes me that it's an angle worth looking at, it's something which someone might search wikipedia for, and has more purpose than just listing what all the captains died of. I think there's an attitude on wikipedia, dominated as it is by 22 year old American liberal arts students, which holds minor cartoon characters as more important than war heroes and it sticks in my craw sometimes. Nick mallory 10:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have List of cricketers who were murdered (we could add the only Test cricketer to have been excecuted for murder...) I can't easily find such a list online. If it can be made into an article, it could fit into our history of cricket series: "Cricket during the World Wars" or similar.

According to this, "During the First World War 210 county cricketers served in the armed forces. Of these, 34 were killed." It menions Percy Jeeves, killed at the Somme in July 1916, and Colin Blythe, killed at Passchendaele in November 1917. I think those statistics must be for English county cricketers - see this which has lots of good images - "Over 200 county cricketers served in the Army. Of these, 34 were killed in action." - which also mentions Blythe, Major William Booth, also killed on the Somme, and Australian Albert Cotter, killed in Palestine in 1917. It also mentions Hedley Verity, killed in Sicily in July 1943. And this mentions New Zealander GCL Wilson. A good quiz question would be to name the only first-class cricketer to win the Victoria Cross... I guess AEJ Collins ought to get an honourable mention too.

Bearders reckons that only 5 English Test cricketers died in the Second World War - Ken Farnes, Geoffrey Legge, George Macaulay, Maurice Turnbull, and Verity. And this one mentions 7 Test cricketers who died in the First World War - Leonard Moon, Blythe, Booth and Kenneth Hutchings (all English), Cotter (Australian), and Reginald Hands and Bill Lundie (both South African) - and 6 in the Second - Turnbull, Legge, Ross Gregory (Australian) Denis Moloney (New Zealand) and Arthur Briscoe (South African). Presumably there are also several first-class Englishmen, Indians, (West Indians?), Australians, South Africans and New Zealanders...

Is there an easy way to find them, looking at 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 death categories, intersecting with cricket categories, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the suggestions, it's very useful info. As it seems to fit into the history of cricket section you already have I'll have a go at in tomorrow. I'd welcome anyone having a look at it and improving it of course when I'm done. Making it into 'cricket during the world wars' is a good idea as it gets around the useless list problem and allows me to use a bit of other stuff i've found out about that period. Nick mallory 08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For English players, places to add the information on deaths of players might be the articles 1915 to 1918 English cricket seasons and 1940 to 1945 English cricket seasons. JH (talk page) 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've done a piece on Cricket in the Great War. It covers a wider range than the 1915 to 1918 English cricket seasons so I don't think there's too much duplication there. There's info from various things which happened around the world and I don't think you could say these men died in an english cricket season, they died in the Great War. It was getting rather long so I might do the Second World War in another section. If anyone has any additions or suggestions then feel free to pitch in. It's linked to the cricket history section. Nick mallory 05:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done Cricket in World War Two now as well. Nick mallory 08:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

From the WW1 article: "Plum Warner, captain of England in the first English Test Match in 1880, took part in a match between his own invitation XI and the Public Schools at the age of 67, scoring 11 before being run out." Should "Plum Warner" read "Lord Harris"? JH (talk page) 09:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably, I'll look it up JH. Thanks for the tips ALoan by the way, they were very useful. Nick mallory 09:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was Lord Harris playing for Plum Warner's XI. I'll change it. Thanks for the heads up. Nick mallory 09:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I created 1915 to 1918 English cricket seasons and 1940 to 1945 English cricket seasons, plus similar articles re other countries during the war years. The scope of these articles is to record what happened in each country to keep the game going and so any international and first-class cricket played during the wars is within that scope. Nick's articles are much broader in scope as they must describe the experiences of cricketers from all countries, although they seem to be anglo-concentric at present. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The main focus of my articles is the cricketers who died in each war, as I think that's something worth remembering and something people would search for, garnished with some of my usual interesting facts and a sprinkle of overview to overcome any objections that 'it's just a random list' re Stephen's warning above. They don't attempt to duplicate Blackjack's efforts to properly document the matches played in each season in each country so, like Blackjack says, there's no reason we can't have both. You might like to check out your section for England 1943, Blackjack, for a bit of vandalism someone left there by the way. Deaths from all countries are covered in as much detail as i have without just repeating player's records too much. As England was the country where cricket was most affected by the war it gets most of the coverage as the articles are about the wars' effect on cricket. The articles are pretty long already so any extra stuff about matches played should go into Blackjack's articles rather than these two, in my opinion. Nick mallory 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Use the wartime season articles for matches, admin and general events within the game itself; use the cricket in wartime articles for the impact on the players and their families. Even so, there's bound to be a bit of overlap.

As for the 1943 vandal, I smacked him in the gob and he woke up in 1973. He is assisting DCI Hunt with his enquiries. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sound good to me Blackjack. Nick mallory 02:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indipper

Is there any difference between this and the inswinger? Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it as a slang variant, but curiously I've never heard of an outdipper! Redirect? --Dweller 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect. I notice Outdipper has already been redirected. –MDCollins (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

An indipper curves into a batsman before pitching. An inswinger curves into the batsman after pitching. Indippers often are yorkers, mistakenly called inswinging yorkers. A true outdipper is rarely bowled. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've seen balls swing in (and out) before seaming. --Dweller 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this may be a regional thing. Nichalp is in India. In England, I'm fairly sure "dip" = "swing", but perhaps on the subcontinent, there's a different usage. Perhaps some of our other subcontinental editors can contribute what they think. (And from other regions; could be other English editors will disagree with me) --Dweller 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought dip referred to vertical movement and swing to lateral. Johnlp 15:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Later clarification: So an indipper is a dipping inswinger and an outdipper is a dipping outswinger. Johnlp 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, would an outdipper move upwards from the hand?! The Rambling Man 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, if Chris Waddle played cricket, he'd be remembered for that. --Dweller 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've heard Wasim Akram use the term a lot during his playing days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is some relevant discussion in the WT:CRIC archive, and outdipper had an AFD just over a year ago. To be honest, I have never heard of "dip" (in or out) as a form of swing before pitching (and, unlike Nichalp, I have never discussed the matter with Wasim :p). Some balls swing (in or out) before pitching, and some afterwards. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't clear above. I was trying to make the same point. In response to the "before pitching" comment, I meant I've seen swing before and after pitching. However, I now really don't understand what kind of "dip" is meant here. Is this a quick-bowler's equivalent of flight? How does a quick bowler vary the rate at which the ball descends vertically... and what would be the opposite ("bowled rarely"), a full-toss that goes higher and higher over the batsman's head? --Dweller 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd understand an indipper as a yorker length delivery which swings in late, maybe with reverse swing, at the last moment. An inswinger goes much earlier with 'banana' swing from the hand. I've never heard 'outdipper' used as a term. 'Dip' in terms of a drop in flight is a term I've heard in connection with spinners - the good bowlers get it to 'dip' in flight so you can't get to the pitch of the ball. That's not 'indip', that's just 'dip' though. Wasim Akram used to swing the ball both ways at once at 90 mph so I guess he can call any delivery anything he wants. As for the ball that goes straight over the batsman's head for four wides (six wides?) I'm sure Saj Mahmood is working on that one in the nets right now with the full approval of Duncan Fletcher. Nick mallory 09:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Godleman

This young man has just achieved something pretty special. I wondered just how special. See his article and feel free to edit! --Dweller 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What a remarkable young man. 18 years old and a 1st class avg of 145... and rising. --Dweller 14:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He's almost as good a bat as Jason Gillespie! 203.108.239.12 02:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphian Tours

I'm trying to make a clearinghouse of Philadelphian articles for myself. You can reach it in my user space here. I've got a bunch of players listed that need articles made and a a list of overseas tours. Did I miss any Philadelphian tours–first-class or others?--Eva ^bd 14:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

FA push

Things seem to have slackened off a little. Is the West Indian cricket team still aiming for FAC any time soon? Indian cricket team is perhaps the best article on a Test team - is anyone thinking of polishing it further? And should bwe pick a player to concentrate on next? Inzamam-ul-Haq perhaps? And didn't Muttiah Muralitharan say that he would retire after the 2007 World Cup? Did he change his mind?

Are we going to try to get Adam Gilchrist on the Main Page for the final of the World Cup? I guess Harbhajan Singh and Paul Collingwood are off the table for the time being, unless we fancy giving them 27th and 31st birthday presents on 3 July and 26 May respectively? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there any other FA left other than players that we could put up for the final on the main page? If not, I guess Adam Gilchrist would be a good choice if they make it to the final. For the other two I think we should fancy their birthdays because their info will be little out of date later.--THUGCHILDz 17:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Murali always said he was going to play for a while. I think, just lodge a request for Gilchrist and tell Raul to scupper it if they lose ot RSA< which I doubt. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Brian Lara? One of the greatest batsmen of all time has just retired. It's amazing the bad press he's got, he's carried them single handed for a decade. Nick mallory 08:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Paul Collingwood is in the queue for Main Page FA on his birthday and the West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 is due for the first day of the 1st Test v England, both in May. --Dweller 10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Test aggregates articles

Progress of Test cricket career run aggregates record and Progress of Test cricket career wicket taking record were started a few months ago by a user who appears to have abandoned them before completion. I'm not entirely convinced that they're notable. —Moondyne 05:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not put the successive record holders on the List of Test cricket records? Doing it by year is pointless really. This list is just a copy of the Howstat page and if no-one can be bothered finishing it then it should go. Nick mallory 06:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've prod'ed them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for something like this when helping write Cricket in Australia. I think it is notable and deserves to stay, although rather than detailing each change in score, it could be trimmed down to listing when the record changed hands, i.e. Gavaskar to Border to Lara. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 09:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if we keep the data, it should be in List of Test cricket records. We really don't need a new article for each record. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Phillip Hughes

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Hughes (cricketer) which raises an issue people here might like to consider. The player in question hasn't played a first-class or List A match. But he has captained his country at Under-19 level. Is that notable enough to satisfy WP:BIO#Special cases?

And for a follow-up question, what if he'd played at Under-19 level but not captained? Or captained at Under-17 level? Where do we draw the line here?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd draw the line at first class cricket. Every first class cricketer is in, and you have to be really notable - like a Collins or another record holder of the highest ever score or the inventor of something important - to get in otherwise. There has to be a clear line somewhere to end the debates and this seems the most obvious one. You could argue for anyone who's appeared in List A cricket too I suppose but Youth Players for me, even for their country, don't cut it. If he's any good he'll soon make his first class debut anyway. We can't defend every single cricketer, just stay firm over what matters, which is the first class game. If it's decided that we think national youth players ARE notable, I will of course change my mind and argue the same on the AfD! Nick mallory 09:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. As I understand it, any other criteria is just a helpful pointer as to whether the sources are likely to exist. So, are there multiple non-trivial published works available? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd agree with Nick mallory with the added point that I feel in this day and age, List A players should be given an equal weight as First Class cricketers. As a suitable cut of, maybe youth players should not be included otherwise unless, as mentioned, some exceptional record/other notable feature is present. An extension of Ollie's point is therefore these published works are not likely to be available. –MDCollins (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

They have to be first-class or the equivalent of first-class. Strictly speaking, "first-class cricket" did not begin until 1947. It is a nonsense term invented by jolly good chaps with three initials, a school tie and a sense of unreality. What we have to ask ourselves is whether a match is major or minor (e.g., Second XI, Minor Counties, inter-parish games). For example, a game between Hampshire (Hambledon) and All-England in 1772 is unquestionably major and certainly of a higher standard than anything involving university teams since 1947. Equally, a National League match in 2007 between Yorkshire and that lot over t'Pennines is also a major match (providing we win). But, neither of my two examples is "officially" a first-class match. The best guide on this is CricketArchive, which is itself guided by the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians. If a match is included on the CA database as a Test or first-class or major match; or if it is ODI or ListA or Twenty20; then it is a notable fixture and everyone in it is a notable player. Mr Hughes is not (yet) a notable player, in my opinion, but it does seem harsh as he is obviously a good player. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 22:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Had he captained Australia in the Under-19 Word Cup, or scored the highest ever score in an Under-19 international then you could make a case for notability. For this however, you can't. Andrew nixon 09:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

USA World Cup?

Has the US ever qualified for the World Cup? I was under the impression that they hadn't, but some has changed United States national cricket team twice to say that they made it in 2003. I thought I'd check here before getting too worked up about it. Thanks.--Eva ^bd 01:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No. The only ICC tournament that they qualified for was the 2004 ICC Champions Trophy =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks!--Eva ^bd 14:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cricket biography stubs

Did you know there are 3,682 of these things?

For illustration, I've decomposed the total as follows:

category	number	comments
Cricket biography stubs	290	mostly from ICC associate and affiliate countries
Australian cricket biography stubs	462	.
Bangladeshi cricket biography stubs	84	.
Canadian cricket biography stubs	74	.
English cricket biography stubs	657	.
English international cricketer stubs	355	including many that are also in the previous category
Indian cricket biography stubs	238	.
Irish cricket biography stubs	162	.
New Zealand cricket biography stubs	301	.
Pakistani cricket biography stubs	209	.
South African cricket biography stubs	345	.
Sri Lankan cricket biography stubs	138	.
West Indian cricket biography stubs	280	.
Zimbabwean cricket biography stubs	87	.
TOTAL	3,682	.

This is very much an upward trend as there is surely a huge number of players from all countries who are still without articles. 19th century English players alone could be several hundred. Has anyone got any ideas about a concerted project approach towards improving substantial numbers of these articles up to start level at least so that they can be de-stubbed? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that there are a fair number of those - maybe 10-20% - that are flagged as stubs when they needn't be. Sometimes someone expands what was originally a very short article, but lacks the confidence to remove the stub status. Also some marginally notable cricketers don't merit any more than a paragraph or two, IMO, and are flagged as stubs unnecessarily. JH (talk page) 15:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

JH makes a very good point. As a generalisation, players who have only played in a handful of first-class matches goes will only need a 2 or 3 paragraphs. As long as they're well-written they should be elevated to Start-class. Look at A. P. Williams (an umpire, first article I randomly opened from category:Australian cricket biography stubs), for example. Notable certainly, but what more could you reasonably write about his cricket credentials and remain encyclopaedic? Cricinfo doesn't have a biog at all. So, in answer to Jack's question about ideas, perhaps a program of untagging some of the stub-tagged articles first. —Moondyne 01:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could all nominate a country and start going through their player pagers and removing stub status for those worthy. I've started looking at Zimbabwe and already found 17 articles listed as stubs which were not. (Crickettragic)

I think Moondyne is right. We need to do a de-stubbing exercise first and then see what's left. I also agree with Crickettragic that the best thing to do is "claim a pitch" as it were and work that but we need people to say on here what they are working on. As it happens, I want to do some more work on early English cricket so as part of that I'll cover off all English players up to the middle of the 19th century. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd happily to the next "tranche" of English players, chronologically speaking, say up to the end of the 19th century. By "up to the middle of the 19th century" do you mean their date of birth, which is the easiest thing to see at a glance and so what I'd prefer, or the end of their playing career? I will delete the stub template and, where there isn't one already, add a WP Cricket template to the Talk page. Should that have its class left blank or should I put it to Start? JH (talk page) 14:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question and sorry for being ambiguous. What I have in mind is to cover all players who were active up to 1863, the last season before overarm was legalised. So, any player whose debut occurred during the underarm and roundarm eras. Most of the 18th century players are already de-stubbed because there is so little information about them that a complete article tends to be short, but I'll double-check them all as I work through.

Re the rating, I would use start as a default and B if it is quite a well-developed article. You might find some that warrant an A if they are very well presented and are near enough complete: it's your call, really. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed stubs in the past that aren't stubs. Could cricket bot be set to trawl cricket stubs and de-stub articles above a certain size? --Dweller 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a judgement call though isn't it? A hundred words on some obscure Victorian gentleman who played one match for Sussex might be all there is to know. If you had a hundred words on Ted Dexter, it would be the stubbiest of stubs. Nick mallory 10:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Destubbing miniproject

To save doubling up and to keep a track of progress, I started a new page linked above. Please join in the fun. —Moondyne 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a note there saying I'm happy to help in a few days time Moondyne. Give me a category and i'll do it. Nick mallory 02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ranjit Fernando Vandal/Stalker

A guy named 12345ak has for the last 24 to 48 hrs been vandalising this page non stop, adding rubbish in and providing a link to his Ranjit Fernando hate site. Due to his frustration at me constantly getting rid of his vandalism he has sent me numerous threatening messages on my talk page. This morning I woke up to find that my last 30 odd contributions in this place has been reverted by this user and was greeted with another message implying that he would keep doing so until I stopped reverting his Ranjit Fernando vandalism. What is the best way of dealing with this? I think for a start the page in question should be protected but due to this guy reverting so many of my posts he may have enough to qualify past semi protection. All the evidence is in this users history so if a mod could block this guy he or she would be doing me a big favour because I am not too keen on waking up every morning and seeing that 30 of my fair and genuine contributions have been tampered with. —Crickettragic

I would report this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for quicker attention. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing Stalled? discussion is at WP:ANI. --Iamunknown 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What about a horse's head in his bed? I added some words in your support at the page. Seriously, wouldn't that kind of disruptive action get him banned straight away for good? I think when they see what's been going on that will happen. Nick mallory 02:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

JB King FP?

In my continued quest to make Wikipedia a great resource for American cricket history, I've nominated this image of John Barton King as a featured picture. If anyone would like to make their voice heard on the issue, that can be done here. Thanks.--Eva ^bd 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I put my vote in, you're doing a lot of great work there Eva. Nick mallory 02:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Horace Brearley

Looking at this article on Mike's father, it contains a fair amount of information, but almost none of it can be verified against the sources given. In particular, a comment that a person has Alzheimer's disease strikes me as something that really does need solid referencing. Can anyone help with that? Also, he's only a couple of months short of his 94th birthday. How does he stand with regard to the list of oldest living (English/overall) first-class cricketers? Loganberry (Talk) 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've not heard of any first-class player making it to the biggest century of all. Not even the Don quite managed that one. The oldest player I know of is Billy Beldam who was just past his 96th birthday when he died in the 1860s. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a few centurions Tintin 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And Eric Tindill is currently the oldest living Test player. Johnlp 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You just beat me to it! Ted English of Hampshire made it to 102 years old. Born January 1, 1864, Dorking, Surrey - Died September 5, 1966, Higher Ball Farm, Tiverton, Devon (aged 102 years 247 days). Nick mallory 07:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Important biographies"

Since the concept of FAs for important people was brought up, I noted that Australian Cricket Hall of Fame, Wisden Cricketers of the Century and ESPN Legends of Cricket might give a useful idicator. Granted, ESPN might be taken as a joke for some, but it is a useful rough guide anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

THe ESPN top fifty isn't too bad. Didn't Don Bradman pick a best ever XI? He knew a thing or too I'm told. Nick mallory 10:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)