User talk:BlackJack/Archive15

Guildford and the RGS

When I received a notification that both of those articles now contained references to Harry Altham (whose article I originally created), I guessed that it must have been you, and when I looked at the articles I saw that I was right. :) Thanks. A couple of the other earliest known definite references to cricket come from within ten or so miles of Guildford (one from Ash and one from Stoke, IIRC), which makes me wonder if the game could have originated in west Surrey rather than a bit further east in the Weald, as is usually supposed. Of course there's no hard evidence. Having been born in a Guildford hospital and still living not far away, I can't help hoping that this area can take the credit, though. JH (talk page) 18:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Jhall1: I don't see why not. John Arlott argued for the Weald and then PWT wrote his "Weald to World" history but Bowen, who was remarkably perceptive about many aspects of the game's origin and development, began his history by saying that, after the earliest references are encountered, "the game was widespread and popular amongst all sections of the community in southern, or rather, south-eastern England". I've always maintained that the birthplace must have been somewhere south of the Thames and east of Hampshire, which gives us three counties, not two, but most chroniclers say it was in the Weald. Their argument is logical, but logic isn't always right. Wherever it actually did begin (and we'll never know), there is no doubt whatsoever that Guildford is where it was first definitely played. Of course, when it finally got up north it was never played better than in Yorkshire . All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of cricket to 1725 into Newenden. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa. I wasn't aware of that requirement so thanks for advising me. I am effectively the sole author of History of cricket to 1725, however, certainly of the sections on the 16th century law cases, so do I need to do anything re Newenden and similar articles? Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If you are the sole author, attribution is technically not required. However, as our copyvio bot is picking up and listing such edits, it's a good idea to mention the source article in your edit summary at the destination article regardless, so as to save patrollers from having to check further, and to save yourself from receiving unneeded messages. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I decided to rewrite the piece as I should have done in the first place instead of being lazy. I found a couple of additional citations too. Thanks for your help, Diannaa. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles Meymott

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Charles Meymott requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such artyicles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. United States Man (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

My bad. That person did not seem very notable at the beginning, but I went back and saw that it is an area you edit in. So you probably know what you are doing here. Apologies, United States Man (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Categorisation of redirects

Hello, I see you reverted my categorisation changes with the rationale that "we don't put redirects into categories". I can see it's a moot point anyway, now you've now created a separate article for Chelsea Common – fast work! To be honest, I wasn't sure how correct your assertion was, but a bit of digging led me to WP:INCOMPATIBLE, which shed some light on the issue. While redirects shouldn't be categorised when they are merely alternative names or misspellings, they can be when the article redirected to doesn't fit the category. I think this would be relevant to instances such as this, e.g. an article for a geographical place appearing in a "wrong-looking" category such as a cricket history one. Hope that's useful. Jellyman (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jellyman, I must admit I've never seen WP:INCOMPATIBLE before so it is useful. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Million Dollar Backfield – good topic?

Are you familiar with good topics? And if so, do you think Million Dollar Backfield (San Francisco 49ers) would be eligible? Once that article is a GA, of course. My main concern is that the articles aren't really "linked together, preferably using a template". Lizard (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, Lizard. I really know nothing about WP:GT and I didn't even know there was such a concept. You'd probably be best to seek advice from someone via WT:GT. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Cricket collectibles

"This is a category categorizing various articles pertaining to collectibles such as action figures, cigarette cards, ephemera and other items related to the sport of cricket." Given the three articles that have so far had the category added, I think the description could do with amending to explicitly mention annuals - and perhaps magazines too (maybe even books?). JH (talk page) 10:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, John, I agree. That description was copied from a similar category for ice hockey so it can be amended and expanded to suit cricket. It should include The Cricketer magazine, certainly. I recently acquired a full cigarette card set and I think a list of all fifty items would be useful here, similar collections to be listed in due course. My collection is 1928 County Cricketers. All counties (17 then) are represented, Surrey by Hobbs, Sandham, Fender and Jardine. A very sad inclusion is "The Late Roy Kilner", who died just weeks before publication. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Al-Shorta SC good article nomination

Hi Jack brother. Recently I nominated Al-Shorta SC (an Iraqi football club) to be a good article (I am the main contributor to the page) and I see that in the past you have reviewed a similar article (Al-Talaba SC) and gave it a good article status and I think your experience with reviewing a football club page before would be useful if you reviewed Al-Shorta page too. If you have time are you willing to review Al-Shorta article? It would be very appreciated, thank you. Of course if you do not want to or not able to then do not Hashim-afc (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc:. I honestly don't think I'm going to have time, Hashim, unless it can wait until the second half of February. I'm going on holiday tomorrow night and I'll be very busy when I come back. I'll keep your message, though, and let you know if I can take it on. Thanks and all the best for now. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Long time, no chat! I was wondering if you know of a handy summary which says when 19th century Australian cricket matches were retrospectively given first-class status (or the whole "first-class" story)? I'd imagine there is something by the ACS somewhere, but I was hoping you could save me a long and tedious search! Sarastro1 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @Sarastro1: good to hear from you again and I hope you are well.

As far as I'm aware, the ACS since the 1980s has recognised Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851 as the inaugural first-class match in Australia. It was the inaugural intercolonial match too, which seems to be the key factor. According to Chris Harte on page 32 of his History of Australian Cricket, there was no official definition of first-class in Australia until the ICC meeting in 1947 which broadly underlined and globalised the MCC/Counties agreement for Great Britain in 1894. Even then, there was uncertainty about which Australian matches should be first-class retrospectively. Apparently, and I didn't know about this previously, there was another ICC meeting in 1981 at which it was agreed that Australian intercolonial and interstate matches before 1947 should be considered first-class (plus Test matches and colony/state v tourists). Chris Harte himself strongly disagreed with the intercolonial limitation and argues that many matches played by the Melbourne Cricket Club and the East Melbourne Cricket Club were "palpably first-class". Harte says that Melbourne Cricket Club "were stronger than Marylebone" (his opinion, as he acknowledges) and that the EMCC "was the Victorian Cricket Association under another name". He points out that the players involved in the 1851 match were completely aware that it was the first intercolonial match and a historical event.

I hope this is useful. Please let me know if I might be of further help.

All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That's perfect! Thanks for that. Which edition of the book is it? ((the ISBN would be perfect!!) I'm a bit hazy on first class status: did the ICC provide the definition and the ACS decide which matches meet it? And do you know of any ACS articles that might shed further light? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, @Sarastro1: the book's ISBN is 0 233 98825 4. It was published 1993 by Andre Deutsch. I have the first edition but I don't know if there were later ones. I'm afraid I can't help with ACS articles myself but if you contact them direct, they may be able to assist. The definition originated in 1894 by agreement between MCC and the County Championship clubs, effective from the start of the 1895 season. The ICC globalised it in 1947 (i.e., in the six Test countries at that time). Following on from the work of Roy Webber in the 1950s, the ACS (formed in 1973) commenced a study of pre-definition matches and their initial findings (including an extensive matchlist) were published in 1981 – this was for GB only but I know they later did the same for the other countries and I believe they have always used 1851 as their start date in Australia. Elsewhere, they selected 1864 for New Zealand; 1865 for West Indies; 1889 for South Africa (this match was also their Test debut!); and 1892 for India. I hope all this is useful. I've added a bit at the 1851 match talk page and it will be interesting if Lourdes can find more in the Australian archives. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Postage stamps of the United States template

Last October User:Jax 0677 started this template Template:Postage stamps of the United States (plus some others one of which has already been deleted) but, I think mainly due to his lack of philatelic knowledge and how to construct complex templates, it remains a real mess with terrible structure and essentially useless with links just thrown around any old way. I eventually got some time to make something worthwhile and it is currently in a sandbox of mine at User:Ww2censor/sandbox#Template test. I'd appreciate your input on it and am asking some other philatelists their opinions. Suggestions accepted, such as additional links or formatting, on my talk page. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

AFD

The AFD of this Bijay Ketan Swain hoax is currently going on. Celestina007 (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Celestina, if we must go that way then I'll certainly contribute. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Unmatched <small> tags

so, what was the reason for reverting my edits on

• ‪1785 English cricket season
• ‪1784 English cricket season
• ‪1783 English cricket season
• ‪1782 English cricket season
• ‪1794 English cricket season
• ‪1797 English cricket season
• ‪1781 English cricket season
• ‪1780 English cricket season
• ‪1779 English cricket season
• ‪1778 English cricket season
• ‪1777 English cricket season
• ‪1776 English cricket season
• ‪1774 English cricket season
• ‪1775 English cricket season

? you provided no edit summary for the revert. my edit was to fix the unclosed <small> tags which will be problematic once the HTML tidy postprocessor is disabled. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have explained that when you altered the tables in the first place. What we saw was a table with borders that suddenly had broken borders. Anyway, all of these tables are being redesigned. We've already done about 25 and the rest will be done in due course. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Cricketers

Hi Jack. I've added a few more from the missing list of Middlesex/Notts/Surrey. Can't be too many left now! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lugnuts. That's right. I think we're down to 90. I was surprised to find Michael Ellison in the list, though he was better known as Yorkshire President than as a player. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Baggallay

Good morning Jack. Please double-check the articles for Thomas Baggallay and Robert Bagguley - I think you have put the opposite articles to the opposite name. Letting you do the job - then you can make sure you've done it right - I trust you more than I trust myself!

All the best. Bobo. 07:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bobo. Dearie me, you're right. Groan! I knew I was getting tired when I did those few last night. Anyway, hope you are well and I'm sure you would do a much better job than me on the evidence of these two . I'll swap them over. Trying to do too many at once in TextPad, I suppose. Best regards. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

All is good. Looks like the lists are getting completed efficiently. Don't worry - we've all made mistakes, especially when names have been similar - or even the same. I know I've made dozens in the past! Stay well. Bobo. 08:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made scores! LOL! I'm glad all is well with you. I'm fine, too, especially since I at long last retired. Never even think about work except I still use the computer a lot to do something positive. Tell you what, I'm much busier and three times more active since I stopped working. There's just so much to do now! Jack | ^{talk page} 09:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Dates in list articles

I'm wondering if abbreviation the years is necessarily that helpful? I sometimes search articles for a specific year, generally if I'm looking for someone who played in a particular era. I wonder if it would be easier, from that perspective, which I think is a possible use of a page, to keep the full date. It's,easier to search for, say, 1914, than 14. What do you think? Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: Hello. I'm thinking you've made a couple of very good points and that I've done it the wrong way. It's one of those areas where, depending on who made the entry, the range format is either ccyy–ccyy (as you would prefer) or ccyy–yy. I thought we should try to achieve consistency but I think now that the ccyy–ccyy format is, as you say, more helpful. Something else that's occurred to me is that, because of the excellently thorough job done by AssociateAffiliate on the Hampshire lists, we should consider Hampshire to be the standard: those lists are all tabulated with the debut and last dates in separate cells and, therefore, written in full ccyy format. I don't suppose it will ever happen but we should ideally aspire to having all the other club lists comply with Hampshire. Anyway, I'll undo the date changes. It didn't take long to do it so little time wasted (the only tedious bit was copying and repasting each one to put it through the process). Thanks very much and I'll get on with that now. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll freely admit to really, really disliking the way the Hants pages are done! It's getting too statistical for me at that point and there are just so many pages. I guess it's simply how I'm using the lists - to me an alphabetical list is of much more use than a chronological one - it helps find families for example. From a usability pov I much prefer the relatively simple lists and I certainly prefer the lists to include all cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested Move completed for History of cricket (1726–1763)

Hello,

The requested move/retitling has been completed on this article. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 17:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Category closure

Hey I saw you closed the discussion of your own nomination, however without implementing the closure. First, it's not allowed to close discussions regarding your own nomination, although in this particular case it doesn't really harm because there is overwhelming support anyway. Second, you haven't really implemented the closure and this is really confusing. When an admin will check the open discussions (that may take another month), he or she will think "this one is closed already so I won't have to take a look at it". So either you implement the closure yourself (which, again, would actually be out-of-process but in this case it doesn't harm) or you'd better revert the closure at the CfD page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: Thanks for the good advice. Yes, I really should leave closure alone so I've reverted it, but we've done the category moves anyway given the consensus. CfD is a pain in the wotsit and always has been. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Well, that certainly confused me, because I came to close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 1#Category:Presidents of Kent CCC and found that it was already implemented. I left a note there about it. As Marcocapelle says, no harm done, but please don't do this again. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Ouch! What I need to know now is the best way to cook this trout (I've just made a shepherd's pie this afternoon because my missus has been unwell, but that's simple and I don't suppose knowing how to do that will help me cook a trout).

Actually, CfD is a sitewide issue because it is frustrating to use and that has always been the case, especially as you often go there and find yourself in some sort of parallel existence where common sense is unknown and the inhabitants do not understand that the purpose of categories is to provide our readers with a useful navigation system. Quite often, as we've seen again recently, CfD just doesn't work. It's a shambles. Anyway, point taken so thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Try Foodista.com.

CfD has problems, including shortage of participants and shortage of closers at the moment. However, you seem to be referring to thoughtless participation and thoughtless closures. Feel free to point out cases in point, if you think that anything could and should be done about them – or underlying causes. – Fayenatic London 19:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, I really would welcome your specific views and feedback on what makes CFD hard, especially if there's anything fixable. Please don't allow me to think that you just can't be bothered... – Fayenatic London 09:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, but it would be time-consuming to find specific cases so it is, shall we say, a strong perception based on multiple visits to CfD over twelve years and on comments I have seen in forums such as WT:CRIC by other editors who have been frustrated there. Categories provide navigation to enhance the reader experience and that is always their priority. For example, a related article may not have a direct link from the one the reader is using; therefore, a category must be provided that takes him there in two clicks instead of one. It's as simple as that and I have long experience of creating such systems in real life. Whenever I have been to CfD, I have been appalled by the number of times I see comments by people who do not understand that essential function of categories and, because CfD has relatively few participants at any time, you can easily find that you are against a consensus of ignorance. For example, I've seen cases where people have argued that a category should be deleted because it has the same name as one of its articles and therefore all the other articles (which are related to the key one) should be categorised elsewhere! I kid you not. The backlog is an availability problem and perhaps more admins are needed to monitor CfD but the real problem at CfD is people who don't understand the purpose of and, from that, the need (or not) for categories. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stuart Surridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fielding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

done Jack | ^{talk page} 11:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Rae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Littleborough (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

done Jack | ^{talk page} 11:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Swarm ♠ 03:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again, Swarm. You've been a great help. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi BlackJack. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Beeblebrox. Thanks very much indeed and I'll read all the info. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Typo fixing

Hello. Was wondering how you can reasonably reassess articles from C-class to Start-class at a rate of up to twenty a minute, and why you'd be using an edit summary of "Typo fixing" when you do so? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Struway2: Hello. "Typo fixing" is probably not an ideal action type but it seems the best one from a limited choice on AWB. It is the reassessment from class=C to class=start that is the meaningful part of the edit summary. What I'm doing is rectifying poor or invalid classifications by people who apparently think that C is the equivalent of start and even stub. We had 1,200 items in the category and the vast majority were invalid because the articles simply do not qualify. So, what I've done is to exclude from my AWB list the articles that are known to have been assessed formally and, given the volume of articles that are dubious at best, I'm moving all those back to class=start so that they can be reassessed properly in due course. We have revised our criteria for B-class and C-class at WP:CRIC to set better standards that we can use to measure an article's progress towards GA and, perhaps, FA. Although most of the incorrect classifications are due to inexperience or lack of knowledge, I know that there are a fair quantity of "rogue" assessments by certain individuals who should know better or who may have some ulterior motive. Anyway, I'm nearly done. If, obviously, I have re-classified something that is a genuine class=C, then I'll be happy to reinstate it. Hope this helps. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Once I had a quick look at some of the ones you changed and saw they were all cricket-related, I assumed it'd be something of the sort. And I see what you mean by inappropriate classifications: I just reduced this one-liner to Stub-class. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's a classic example. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, BlackJack. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Swarm ♠ 04:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Swarm. As a matter of fact, I've got an RM on the go at the moment but I'll let the discussion there run its course. I'll make sure I read everything and will let you know if I've any questions. I'm sure I'll have a good use for the functionality because WP:CRIC is a somewhat, shall we say, mobile project and page moves are happening on an almost daily basis. Thanks very much for all your help. Best wishes. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Double redirects - I just cleaned up a bunch of double redirects for Arthur Day. When you move pages it's important to check for these as they break the links - easily forgotten I know. Iirc there is a guide on what to do when moving pages that includes this and how to do it. Fortunately in this case there weren't too many to pick up. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

These are not double redirects. Arthur Day (cricketer, born 1885) redirects to Arthur Day (Kent cricketer) so the changes you made are only avoiding redirects. A double redirect is an entirely different thing. Thanks anyway. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Cricketer clean-ups

Hi. I'm not convinced this type of edit is useful, as "first-class" is linked in the very next sentence and "English people" would fail WP:OVERLINK. And this should def. not be done via AWB, per the rules of use (rule 3). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay, Lugnuts. I was trying to emphasise the notability aspect by saying as soon as possible that the man is a first-class cricketer and not just a cricketer. It's something I've noticed in AfD when someone tries to have one of our stubs deleted: they pick up on the article not specifying the notability. I think you're probably right, though, so I'll leave off. It's tedious, anyway :-) Jack | ^{talk page} 12:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I was about to come to say the same thing! The ones I watch I'll revert which is why there will be a tonne of reverts in your top bar :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I just reverted one of these where the first sentence provides a link to cricket and the second to first-class cricket, but you'd altered the first link to be the same as the second. Doesn't make sense to me. Johnlp (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't one of my better ideas. :-( Jack | ^{talk page} 15:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Australian cricket team in England in 1902

Hi. I see that you've flagged this article as needing additional citations. As someone who did a lot of work on the article back in the day (when perhaps things tended to be less rigorous than they are now), I wonder if you could indicated where you think additional citations are needed? The "References and notes" section currently has as many as 63 entries, but if there are any glaring omissions I'll try to rectify them. JH (talk page) 15:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

Hello, John, I hope you had a great holiday. What struck me about this article was that there is no obvious citation for most of the narrative paragraphs and only a CA link in each result line. As CA don't provide narrative, other than the occasional helpful comment, I wondered if the narratives had come from Wisden. Hope this helps but let me know I can help more. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I had a very good holiday, thanks. Sam Vimes did most of the work on the article, and then I subsequently added to it after he sadly disappeared, expanding the intro and descriptions of the Tests and adding the county matches at the end of the tour that Sam hadn't got around to. I think that for the county matches the narrative only uses information that's included in the CA scorecard that's linked to. For example, for the 7–9 July match of Warwickshire v Australians, there's a note at the end of the CA scorecard that says "Only 40 minutes play was possible on the final day due to rain", and that information is used in our narrative. For the Tests, we made use of Wisden, as IIRC their Test reports were available online at Cricinfo, but I don't think their county reports were, and I don't have the 1903 Wisden. For the Tests I also made use of Barker and Rosenwater's excellent book. JH (talk page) 09:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. I've removed the attention tag as, looking at the article again, it would benefit from some more inline citations but the attention tag isn't really appropriate. I'll look at the article myself when I find time as I've got some material about that period, not specifically about the tour, though. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960–61

I see that you've rated this article as Start class, when you yourself had rated it as B class back in 2008. I've been away on holiday for the last ten days or so, so if there's been any discussion in thew WP of the reason for this then I've missed it. JH (talk page) 15:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but we had much different standards then and we really need to be seeing B-class now as a step away from GA-class. This article needs a lot of citations and some work on the WP:MoS side too: e.g., there are several single-sentence paragraphs which re deprecated at MoS now. Again, if I can help, please let me know. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Whatever the MoS may say, I think there are occasions when single sentence paragraphs are appropriate, but of course they should be few and far between. When time permits, I'll take another look at the article, especially with a view to seeing where citations are lacking. JH (talk page) 09:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Cricketer AfD

Hi Jack. For info, the subject has a slightly different spelling for their bio on Cricinfo. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, brilliant, Lugnuts. I did look at CI but couldn't find him. I'll add this to the article as a second reliable source. Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of AfD, I found this from ten years ago (!) when I was looking at the Indian cricket team in England in 1952 article yesterday. A (very) belated thank you for starting that article :D Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lugnuts. Yes, I vaguely recall that AfD because I was snowed under at work and couldn't do much at the time to help the two guys who started the expansions. I see that I pitched into the 1946 article a day after the AfD was closed, fortunately in our favour. I know we did temporarily lose some tour articles because they had been set up as one-line place-markers and the AfD mob objected. That was in the days before inline citations, too, so we often had to justify the books in our biblio sections! I think nearly all the tour articles (certainly those involving one of England or Australia or both) were started in the early days but most of them weren't developed until much later. There was just so much to do: all fields round here then . All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No probs! Just to note, on changes like this, there's nothing else really to link to and having two links on a stub isn't too bad. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Aagh! Sorry, Lugnuts, it's that sodding AWB thing again. I'm going through all 02blythed's new articles this year to see if I can correct his sourcing (both of Basheer and Shah are his). I notice that he always writes "first class" so I'm going through the Pakistani cricketer category to correct that, using AWB. Trouble is, it looks for other things it can clean up and I didn't know it adds attention tags. I'll watch out for those and remove them if it creates them. It saves a lot of the tedium in multiple simple changes but it shouldn't be doing extra work. Thanks for letting me know as I wouldn't have seen the tags. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Jack! I wrote an article that's under afd. Would be great if you could have a look and chime in if you've got some time. Thank you! Climate7298 (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Climate7298. I agree with you. The article should have been tagged, not hauled into AfD. It should be okay now, though. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Jack! Climate7298 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

MCC

Whilst I admire your energy and industry, these lists of players for 'ad hoc' teams seems difficult to justify. Most MCC players post say 1939, were just those players available because their county was not playing, a genuine England A type selection or a bag of members and others. The professionals contracted by the club would make an interesting list though it would be lengthy their being often thirty each year. The same for North and South, bearing in mind that some of the titles from c 1870's are not all that certain and post say 1890, they were make-up or festival teams. I think CP Buckenham could not have been very fast as he had some stumpings. Kortright as a matter of interest has the keeper no more than about fifteen yards back in the famous picture, in fact more like twelve. As someone who stood at slip to several fast medium bowlers, 20 yds was the minimum! Ontario Railway (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I agree about the standard of numerous MCC players. I knew MCC had used a lot of members and minor counties types but this exercise has revealed many more than I expected. I won't be attempting to convert any redlinks from these lists, btw, because we've got articles now for all county players and I don't think these guys justify articles unless they're notable for something outside cricket. Personally, I think county cricket (and equivalents) should be the criterion for notability but it would never be accepted: too much support for all first-class.

The purpose of the lists is summary information but they are also aids to research because they help identify anyone who's missing and they provide a measure of navigation for readers looking for other players from that club (categories aren't always up-to-date and are not easy to plough through, which is a design issue). Then there is the question of completeness. We've done all the counties and universities so why not MCC too? Moot point. The big problem with MCC is scale. They have used over 3,000 players and none of the counties have even 1,000 (I checked Yorkshire and their total is 669).

I don't think Kortright can have been too quick compared with modern pace bowlers who are stronger, fitter, much more athletic. Even Trueman doesn't look that fast when you watch film of him now. The old legends about fast bowling have to be tempered by asking what sort of speed they were used to at the time. Brett and Harris were "express" bowlers in the 18th century but in fact their speed (bowling underarm, too) might not have been much greater than the quicker balls of Warne or Swann. Who knows?

I never fielded at slip, always at cover or mid wicket: I used to be quick on my feet, a long time ago! I remember a school match when I actually ran someone out after my usual wayward throw hit one of our close fielders and ricocheted onto the wickets! Jack | ^{talk page} 13:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Article assessment

"You have just assessed xxx article as C-class when it is unquestionably start-class only." No, assessment is a matter of judgement it is not "unquestionable." WP:CIR: "Be cautious when referencing this page, as it can be insulting to other editors." Please read the essay pages you refer to and refrain from leaving patronising messages on mine and others' talk pages. People give up their time to work here. I've been editing here since 2001 and most people seem to think I'm competent, see my talkpage. I'd be grateful if you communicated with me as little as possible and don't revert changes to my talk page. thanks Tom B (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tpbradbury: Read each project's assessment criteria before you change classifications in future. Assessment is a matter of judgment, yes, but based on a sound understanding of set criteria about which you are apparently ignorant. Your assessments of numerous cricket articles were way off the mark; you were even awarding B-class to some that were not much more than stubs and to others which were statistical records in breach of WP:NOTSTATS. My messages were not patronising: they were honest criticims of someone who is creating extra work for other people who have given up their time to work on here. You clearly believe you are above criticism and I suppose your talk page will present an impression of support if all critical posts are deleted. I have no desire to communicate with the likes of you at all but, in future, assessments you make of cricket articles will be reverted immediately because I have no confidence whatsoever in your ability to do the job right. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Laws

Thanks for all your work on this. One thing that might be worth adding to the historical section is the introduction of sides being able to declare their innings. JH (talk page) 07:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, John. I believe declaration and follow-on were both subject to several changes before they finally settled on the present criteria. There is also roundarm and overarm to be included; and I think bodyline too. Then there are all the lbw issues. I'd like to find out exactly how many codes MCC have released but not having much success with that. Do you know of a good source that references all of them? Jack | ^{talk page} 16:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Dates in Cricket History, an article that used to appear in Wisden every few years, had a section on the evolution of the Laws. See http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/153476.html. But that doesn't really answer your question. Barclay's World of Cricket might have something. A quick search on the Web has turned up this useful page, which links to all the versions of the Laws from 1884 onwards: http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/LAWS/index.html Even better, if you click on the 1884 link, for instance, the page that comes up has links to all the revisions between 1884 and the next full edition. JH (talk page) 09:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll make use of those, certainly. One article I've found in Wisden 1963 is "Evolution of the Laws of Cricket" which is on pp. 184–187 if you have that edition (the 100th). There is a bit in Barclays written by Jack Bailey which is useful but it is a summary and I'm not sure if he's covered everything. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately my first Wisden is the 1964 edition.

Rohan Rangarajan

Hello BlackJack. I seen this article Rohan Rangarajan. Why its not notable? Can you settle the issue. Will be Thankful. Greenbörg (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Greenbörg: Hello there, Greenbörg. Thanks for letting me know. It's always best with these to post a notice at WT:CRIC. You are absolutely right about the RfC result. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Australian cricket team in Zimbabwe in in 1999-2000 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Australian cricket team in Zimbabwe in in 1999-2000. Since you had some involvement with the Australian cricket team in Zimbabwe in in 1999-2000 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Loopy30 (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Result (cricket)

I see your point, but just because an article is rated as Top-importance to a particular project, that doesn't necessarily mean the article belongs in the topic's parent category. If you take a look at Category:Top-importance football articles, you'll see 40 articles, but only five are included in Category:Association football because there are more appropriate sub-categories for the others to go in. – PeeJay 17:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Well, true, but we agreed in CRIC (long ago, don't know when) that we would limit the root category to those articles which are integral to the sport and therefore top importance by default. Part of the agreement was that no players or clubs can be included. In fact, we included it in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Assessment#Importance_scale, although I see that's a little out of date as there are now 28 top articles, not 26. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense to limit the parent category to only Top-importance articles, but that doesn't work both ways. Just because an article is Top-importance doesn't mean it has to go in the parent category. – PeeJay 17:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I was just looking at FOOTY's two lists and I think it is the better method. Something like cricket bat is an obvious component of cricket whereas History of cricket, though directly related, is a subject in itself, as is Geography of association football, for example. Okay, I agree. Let me have a look at all those articles because I see you have already had to take some like cricket pitch out of the equipment category where it definitely doesn't belong. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)