Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Request for comment on achievements and awards boxes

Following on from the above discussion, I'd like to invite more editors to look at the issue of biography articles of cricketers containing sections for achievements and awards. This was the example given in that discussion. Does this violate WP:NOTSTATS? Should these sections be included in articles? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the above. The project appears to have a consensus against adding these to biographies, but there are only a handful of participants in the discussion. Ideally, I'd like some opinions from people not attached to the project, for a neutral view. Here's another example from a cricketer who made a Test century today. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think issues are that much serious that we should mass remove them. They all need decent prose and suddenly they will start making sense. It is true that they are WP:NOTSTATS but if we explain them then they will not. We have FLs on cricketers achievements but all have good prose. If they were lists full of stats then I would support but not here. @Gihan Jayaweera: so they can participate and can acknowledge that whenever they will add these stats then they will explain them. Thanks. Störm (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: for their view. Störm (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment What I have to say is, the particular awards are internationally accepted achievements to rate their importance in the cricket world. So, citing them is a useful note to the article of the player and I don't think it is useless. Some players like Tendulkar, Jayasuriya, Ponting, Gilchrist, and Dravid, they have separated achievement articles. We all know they are legends in the game. To add that caliber, adding their achievements and awards is important.

Thanks. Gihan Jayaweera talk 7:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gihan Jayaweera: We acknowledge that these achievements are recognized, but what we're saying is WP:NOTSTATS is a policy, so if you're going to be adding these to every article you must include prose to give them context. The difference with featured lists like List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar is that they have a lot of prose to give context and further information about the achievements, which almost none of the articles with tables at the bottom have. While I'm not opposed to including these achievements in the articles, I think it's better done within the body of the articles or with prose explaining why it's important that they be included and adding more context to explain how significant their achievements are. As it stands, indiscriminantly adding them for every player without context, you'd assume a player like William Porterfield was a better cricketer than Marcus North because he has more international centuries and man-of-the-match performances. Even though almost all of Porterfield had the advantage of less competitive innational selection (being Northern Irish rather than Australian) and his achievements were almost all against other associate nations (weaker opposition than the Test playing nations Australia usually plays), neither article has any prose to give context and explain the significance of their achievements so you can actually understand where they stand. Do you understand that it is Wikipedia policy that "articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." TripleRoryFan (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. MoM awards are arguably WP:TRIVIA and definitely, per NOTSTATS, indiscriminate information at least and so in breach of WP:IINFO. I have no problem with them being mentioned in the narrative if the player's performance in a given match was especially outstanding but, really, they are of no benefit the reader and they should not form a prominent part of the article. I entirely agree with the points made by TripleRoryFan above. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal Agree that the MotM awards are trivia. They add no real value to the article and any outstanding performance(s) can be mentioned as prose in the body of the article. The same with the over-bloating of adding table after table to show a century in one format, a five-wicket haul in another, some other milestone in yet another table. Here's a pretty bad example of adding in tables for the sake of adding them in. And they fast become full of over-specific esoteric wording that doesn't help the reader. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional Oppose I think that information doesn't violate NOTSTATS if it can be conveyed in a way that supplements the core prose of the article, as a secondary focus. That's the big question though, can it consistently be conveyed that way? In some cases it might work, in others it wouldn't. Ultimately, I think a case-by-case basis is the best approach here. South Nashua (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. I agree with much of what South Nashua has written immediately above, but fall off the fence in the opposite direction. I think there may be occasions when the notability of this kind of information justifies its display in this way, but in a lot of those cases – record holders, serially successful players, etc etc – we might more usefully look at spin-out articles, often in the form of lists. Essentially, however, WP should remain as a narrative encyclopedia and far too many of these sections have very few entries or have not been updated. There are even sections entitled "Test match centuries by..." which contain only one century, and that's just silly. I'd also plead for some restraint on colour schemes: South Nashua is right that these things, if they exist, should be a "secondary focus", and screaming fluorescent colours do nobody's eyeballs any favours. Johnlp (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Building on what I said and what John said here, with these "marginal" statistics, such as a player with just one century, placing that statistic in the article's infobox would be more than fine. No need to place it in the article's mainspace unless it's significant. South Nashua (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

So what's the consensus here? I'm not used to how these sorts of things work but nobody has commented here for over a week now and I'm not sure how to proceed with player articles that have the stats in them. TripleRoryFan (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

TripleRoryFan RfCs stay around for 30 days; then they are closed with an outcome which will decide that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Agree with jack. If they are important, they can be mentioned in description of the player's career. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral.I am not against the man of the match and man of the series awards to be posted in each and every cricket biographies as I think according to my point of view those navigation boxes add beauty to the articles as it is our tradition that we have been doing in Cricket related biographies. But on the same time, the man of the match award boxes would cover the 3/4th or 2/3rd of an entire biography meaning that the particular cricketer's achievements in international cricket can be identified through the number of man of the match and many of the series awards earned by that player. There are some articles which have been devoted to the Man of the match awards earned by some of the greatest cricketers in the international cricket separately for example List of ODI awards for Sachin Tendulkar who has earned about 63 Player of the match awards in ODIs, the most by a cricketer in a single format. If the conclusion of this debate is delete so the above article should also be deleted. I at least propose to go with Player of the Series award rather than Player of the Match according to the convenience. Thank you Abishe (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• It depends - if there's a table then there needs to be prose to put the table in context. If the contents of the table can be better summarised in the prose then there's no need for the table, but that's not always possible. So, some tables may be appropriate in some cases, although only, I would suggest, with a solid prose introduction of some kind.

If there are going to be tables of stats and awards then I would prefer that they were in an appropriate place in the article. Too often I'm finding sections added to the end of articles, which seems to be leading to too many sections in articles. If there were a statistical summary section that would be more helpful than just a set of different sections thrown on an article.

Interesting to note that today's featured article (Ian Johnson (cricketer)) has a single table and a graph right at the bottom but nothing else in terms of tables of awards, centuries, five wicket hauls and the like. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Even in other foreign language wikis, these Infoboxes are available in Cricket biographies Abishe (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that that's a direct copy (and a v recent one btw) of the English language wikipedia page. Formatting and all. There's one extra source in the En language one - the one that references something in the infobox. It's a direct copy so that's why the tables have been copied across. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Team info in infoboxes

I don't have any great expertise here (and this might have been covered before but I searched and couldn't find anything relevant) but I'd like to request that we consider having two sections for teams in a player's infobox. I think we should have one for first-class/List A teams, and one for T20 teams. Kevin Pietersen's article is perhaps the worst culprit of what a cluttered infobox can look like at the moment. Under my proposal, he should have one section saying he was at Natal 99-00, Notts 01-04, Hampshire 05-10 and Surrey 10-15, and any other county/state/province side he played serious FC or LA cricket for. He should then have a different section beneath that for the million T20 sides he has played for. Kieron Pollard is another. There is a precedent in infoboxes doing this - rugby players who play for both a state and Super Rugby team have it displayed in this way, and I think that would greatly de-clutter and clarify the situation. Thank you. JamKaftan (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Great idea. The thing is to combine all T20 apps in one line regardless of team names. Pietersen's infobox is farcical. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Wholeheartedly agree. Especially makes sense since nowadays the domestic Twenty20 sides are (in most places) separate from the FC and LA sides nowadays. Might also be worth considering splitting Twenty20 clubs up further by the country for some players since a lot of them will simultaneously have teams in the IPL, BBL, CPL, County Cricket, etc. and including them all in one group could be confusing for readers since that doesn't happen in most other sports. TripleRoryFan (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's good, TRF. I agree. We could just use the tournament name instead of the country but I'm open on that. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we see a suggested layout for KP? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC) {{

Kevin Pietersen
MBE

Pietersen in 2014
Personal information
Full name	Kevin Peter Pietersen
Born	(1980-06-27) 27 June 1980 Pietermaritzburg, Natal Province, South Africa
Nickname	KP, Kelves, Kapes, Kev
Height	1.93 m (6 ft 4 in)
Batting	Right-handed
Bowling	Right-arm off break
Role	Batsman
Relations	Jessica Taylor (wife; m. 2007)
International information
National side	England (2004-2014)
Test debut (cap 626)	21 July 2005 v Australia
Last Test	3 January 2014 v Australia
ODI debut (cap 185)	28 November 2004 v Zimbabwe
Last ODI	16 September 2013 v Australia
ODI shirt no.	24
T20I debut (cap 7)	13 June 2005 v Australia
Last T20I	27 June 2013 v New Zealand
Domestic team information
Years	Team
1997–1998	Natal B
1998–1999	KwaZulu Natal B
1999–2000; 2010	KwaZulu Natal
2001–2004	Nottinghamshire
2004	Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)
2005–2010	Hampshire
2010–2015; 2017	Surrey
Twenty20 team information
Years	Team
Australien
2014–present	Melbourne Stars
England
2003–2004	Nottinghamshire
2005–2010	Hampshire
2011–2015; 2017	Surrey
Indien
2009–2010	Royal Challengers Bangalore
2011	Deccan Chargers
2012–2014	Delhi Daredevils
2016	Rising Pune Supergiants
Pakistan
2016–present	Quetta Gladiators
Südafrika
2015–present	Dolphins
West Indies
2014–present	St Lucia Stars
Career statistics
Competition Test ODI T20I LA Matches 104 136 37 253 Runs scored 8,181 4,440 1,176 8,112 Batting average 47.28 40.73 37.93 40.76 100s/50s 23/35 9/25 0/7 15/46 Top score 227 130 79 147 Balls bowled 1,311 400 30 2,390 Wickets 10 7 1 41 Bowling average 88.60 52.86 53.00 51.75 5 wickets in innings 0 0 0 0 10 wickets in match 0 n/a 0 n/a Best bowling 3/52 2/22 1/27 3/14 Catches/stumpings 62/– 40/– 14/– 85/–
Source: Cricinfo, 19 October 2017

I don't really know how template stuff works but here's an example I made of what it could look like (I've dropped the squad numbers from the infobox in this because they take up a lot of space and I think they should be removed altogether since they don't really have any significance in cricket and don't even exist in first-class teams). I've divided it up further by country (you could do by tournament but there've been three different English tournaments and I'm not sure which ones he did/didn't play in). TripleRoryFan (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Three English ones already! I've lost track of 'em. I think your layout is a significant improvement and I vote we adopt yours. Well done. Jack | ^{talk page} 05:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd prefer going a bit further and having it hideable (e.g. "[show]" and "[hide]") with the default being set at hide for T20 teams (and possibly all domestic teams). Especially for players like this the bloat is too much. Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, was going to suggest the same on the collapsiblity. I would consider there to be a minor error on the Pietersen info, which in itself is unimportant at the moment but raises a questions for me : how should we list players who have recently (or ever) only played T20s for what would be considered their "main" team. For franchise tournaments where there is no link to a 1st class team it is not an issue, but in English domestic cricket (and SA / NZ?) the T20 teams are one and the same as the 1st class teams. I don't think there will be many cases where a domestic player will play a significant number of T20s and never play a List A or 1st class, but it is possible and in 2017 Pietersen was a T20 only player for Surrey. For single country domestic players, should we add the same team in both the existing club section and the new T20 section or just use the T20 for players who play in more than one country? Spike 'em (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context. If it's a player who specifically only plays in Twenty20s for a season it should probably only be included in the Twenty20 section, but if they happen to miss all first-class and list A matches due to injury or poor form but otherwise would have been in the team I think it can be included in the other domestic team info section, especially if they play list A and first-class matches in the season before/season after. TripleRoryFan (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion from December 2015 is probably worth revisiting as it contains some similar ideas.

Any changes obviously need to ensure that there is no impact on existing info box use. The issue is primarily one that impacts a fairly small number of players who play in franchise T20 leagues. Perhaps the type of league needs to be the division rather than simply by type? So a player who plays for an English county side probably doesn't need that in a new section, but one who has played on the franchise circuit might well benefit from a separate section. I imagine the number of players this applies to will increase, but primarily we're looking at those such as Gayle, McCullum etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The consensus on that discussion seems to be to implement the changes Harrias suggested but it doesn't seem to have happened. I think it's a great idea to reduce the amount of information in the infobox and make them collapsible, otherwise you end up with players whose infoboxes are about as long as the actual text of the article itself. Any idea why it didn't get done?

I think the issue with separating domestic and T20 doesn't just give clarity for people who play in a number of franchise leagues, but also domestic players. Like an Australian domestic player with a long career might have played for a couple of states and several BBL teams, so clearly differentiating which teams are which could be helpful (e.g. in Adam Zampa, who has played for two states and three BBL teams). TripleRoryFan (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Given any change to use a new template will require editing players we can deal with players on a case-by-case basis. Aus domestic players will need separate sections as the Big Bash teams are separate entities from the state teams. English domestic players I'd keep as is (unless they also play franchise cricket), except the odd instance like KP. We'd need some guideline on what to do with overseas players in English cricket. Some come over for the whole year and play all forms of the game, whilst others just play the T20 competition. For the latter, I'd put the info in the T20 section, but for the former should we just list them in the Domestic teams, or both Domestic and T20? I've resurrected the test template, and am adding @Harrias:'s version for KP. I've been trying to figure out how to do the collapsing and now I've seen his work, I'll attempt to merge the two. Spike 'em (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Pietersen
Pietersen in 2014
Full name	Kevin Peter Pietersen
Born	(1980-06-27) 27 June 1980 Pietermaritzburg, Natal Province, South Africa
Role	Batsman
Batting style	Right-handed
Bowling style	Right-arm off break
National side	England
Tests	2005–2014
ODIs	2004–2013
T20Is	2005–2013
Domestic teams 1997–1998 Natal B 1998–1999 KwaZulu Natal B 1999–2000; 2010 KwaZulu Natal 2001–2004 Nottinghamshire 2004 Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) 2005–2010 Hampshire 2009–2010 Royal Challengers Bangalore 2010–2015; 2017 Surrey 2011 Deccan Chargers 2012–2014 Delhi Daredevils 2014–present St Lucia Stars 2014–present Melbourne Stars 2015–present Sunfoil Dolphins 2016–present Quetta Gladiators 2016 Rising Pune Supergiants
Career statistics   Test ODI T20I LA Matches 104 136 37 253 Runs 8,181 4,440 1,176 8,112 Bat ave. 47.28 40.73 37.93 40.76 100s/50s 23/35 9/25 0/7 15/46 Top score 227 130 79 147 Wickets 10 7 1 41 Bowl ave. 88.60 52.86 53.00 51.75 5 wi 0 0 0 0 10 wi 0 n/a 0 n/a BBI 3/52 2/22 1/27 3/14 Ca/St 62/– 40/– 14/– 85/–
Source: Cricinfo, 19 October 2017

Happy to help with this. Worth bearing in mind what our MOS says on infoboxes: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." In my opinion, Infobox cricketer has become a bloated mess, and would seriously benefit from a significant trim and overhaul. Ideally, we want a solution that involves as little changing of current articles as possible, and as much done in the code of the infobox as possible. This was part of what derailed my proposed changes before, as it would have involved editing pretty much every cricketer's article to get it to work properly. Harrias ^talk 10:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for completeness, I've changed the KP details in the 2nd infobox to appear as it would if we adopted Harrias's version. Will try to work on a version which separates T20 franchises if I get a moment. Spike 'em (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Could we get a look at what a non-international player might look like? And someone who played ages ago - the sort of chap who would only have FC apps and might have only played for one team? They presumably make up a significant proportion of the info boxes we have and it might be nice to see how this sort of thing affects them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that is one of the main things I'm testing at the moment. I've picked another Surrey player at the start of his career and testing the various infobox formats at User:Spike 'em/sandbox/OP. If you had the name of an olden-days player in mind I'll add them too.Spike 'em (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated. Someone like Dick Blaker is worth trying. Or maybe Jack Hubble - old school one team men (or one + the usual odds). Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

My 2p. The version that lists all the teams is horridly bloated and needs the show/hide idea. The second version is better, but hides his overall stats, which I think should always be visible. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see both sides of that one - no real preference. What I would quite like to be able to see is their FC debut perhaps. Or their FC span anyway - rather like Harrias' version has with the Test span etc... To me that's quite interesting and should probably be visible by default. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, one way of reducing bloat would be to remove the names of the countries the teams play in. Just go with the chronology. Many of the team names are fairly self-explanatory and for any that aren't, people can click through easily enough. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The idea with having the country names isn't to give more information but to separate out Twenty20 franchises by country so that they make more sense at a glance than having four different teams with overlapping spans. TripleRoryFan (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

How about stuff like family and height. Are we looking to keep it or get rid of it. Pros and cons of both options. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see much use for the height field. KP is 6ft 4. So what? And factor in the edit-warring and anon IP unsourced additions I see in this one field alone makes it feel that it's more trouble that it's worth. The relations though is def. worth keeping, but only if the relations are notable in their own right. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd get rid of the height, nicknames, even full name – that is always given on the first line of the article, so why repeat it in the infobox? Harrias ^talk 07:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me - nicknames are particularly prone to munchkinism. There needs to be a field below the title for name I imagine, but otherwise that's fine. Some sort of non-international playing span that's visible always would be my only real want I suppose.

I know it would be a tonne of work, but I'm increasingly thinking that it might be better to just start again and kill the old info box off gradually... Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If we're looking at radical changes I think it might be a good idea to completely do away with the player's domestic clubs in the infobox and instead add a table to players' articles similar to the ones that show career stats for football (soccer) players. Really the only things that need to always be visible in a player's infobox are their name, their birth date, their country, their international career span, batting handedness, bowling style and whether they're a batter/bowler/all-rounder/wicket-keeper. Career stats I feel shouldn't be automatically visible, because right now there are a lot of stub articles where the infobox is longer than the actual text in the article because the career stats are shown by default. TripleRoryFan (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean most cricketers don't even have international career; also even for international players I feel at least the most important sides should be mentioned, like the domestic first class team played for. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with including first-class teams, but when it comes to Twenty20 teams there's just too many of them, especially if the player plays in multiple Twenty20 leagues, to include all of them in the infobox by default. TripleRoryFan (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Cricket

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 14:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

All done. Thanks Rod. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That's great thanks.— Rod ^talk 17:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Some advice please Rod ,Ianblair23 : As part of this, I've editted Francis Appleyard and changed his place of birth from one DAB to another. All I can find on the internet is that he was born in Clifton, Yorkshire of which there are many! Previously his place of birth was Clifton, South Yorkshire, which is just a redirect to the main Clifton DAB. There are (at least) 2 Cliftons in South Yorkshire! Is it ok to leave it pointing to the more specific DAB, or is it better to remove the link altogether? Spike 'em (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The ideal would be to find a source which makes it clear which Clifton he was born in, failing that I would leave it pointing at the dab page as you have done. For any dab queries try: Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation.— Rod ^talk 20:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Template for collapsible cricketbox

I think it is useful if we also have a collapsible scorebox for cricket in same way as how it is present for football. This will be very useful, especially in a very big tournaments. I think this can make pages look better instead of using current Limited overs matches template(Or someone can just make that collapsible). Did anyone try to do that or is there any discussion on this anytime? Thanks. Sagavaj (talk) 2:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Like this? Harrias ^talk 07:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

30 July	Loughborough Lightning 128/9 (20 overs)	v	Yorkshire Diamonds (H) 85 (17.1 overs)	Loughborough Lightning won by 43 runs
14:30 Scorecard				Headingley, Leeds Umpires: Ben Debenham and Tom Lungley
	Sophie Devine 52 (38) Jenny Gunn 2/20 (4 overs)		Lauren Winfield 23 (13) Rebecca Grundy 3/21 (4 overs)
Loughborough won the toss and elected to bat Points: Loughborough 3, Yorkshire 0

There's a summary box as well that can be used - but rarely is. In many cases it seems that "articles" about tournaments are little more than an intro paragraph, a bunch of tables and then several rolling lengths of scores. It would be useful to reduce the length of scrolling at least. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:COLLAPSE - "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g. several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats). You could count that information as being supplementary; but maybe not, if the description of the tournament is indeed like that hiding it won't fix the problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Collapsible shouldn't conceal main summary of articles but I think that individual contributions come as secondary and team scores as main content. @Harrias that is correct but why don't we use it more often? Sagavaj (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that the collapsible templates don't hide anything that is crucial for the article. In almost every case the information in them is supplementary - so MOS:COLLAPSE is met by using them. If someone does score a 300 or take 7/9 or similar then I'd hope that that would be mentioned in the main article - most of the time though it's someone with best bowling of 2/43 and a high score of 32. Not exactly worth a drama.

They probably aren't used more because people don't know about them or prefer to fill articles with data. I imagine. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Or they do know about them and like to adhere to the MOS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you can do both though. If you take the view that the highest scores etc... are supplemental then the MOS is adhered to. I wouldn't do that for final matches of a competition, but I do think it's utterly reasonable, as a compromise, to suggest that we should be aiming to minimise the amount of scrolling that a user has to do to get from the top of the first fixture to the bottom of the final one.

To be honest, I think it's also possible to take a view that there shouldn't be very long lists of scores presented as score templates. These generally aren't necessary and might be better presented via an external link. I'd much rather see a prose summary than a whole pile of scores - although I understand why that's not done. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that both have merit in certain places, it genuinely depends on the scope of the article. Compare Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009, 2016 Women's Cricket Super League, English cricket team in Bangladesh in 2009–10 and 1978 Gillette Cup Final. All written by me, and all either Featured or Good, but all using very different methods to present the score, depending on the scope of the article. Harrias ^talk 19:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I tend to think the choices made in all those articles are entirely reasonable - and I agree totally that you can have both statistical information and prose. I understand why prose isn't being added to most articles in the sort of way it is in those articles though.

I suppose that my issue is with articles such as 2013 Indian Premier League which is a really interesting article to consider (I don't think anyone who's contributing to this discussion has edited it in a major way by the way). There's actually some pretty decent prose and then you get to the map. And then... I just don't see why the whole section of scores is necessarily valuable enough to need to see all the detail - I counted 14.5 screens worth of scrolling, albeit on a laptop. The WSL one, otoh, needed 1.5 scrolls. 1.5 is fine. It's appropriate. 14.5?!

Is there are one line template at all? Literally one line per match, to replace the need to wrangle with table syntax (which I appreciate many people find difficult) as in the Somerset article? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

In articles like 2013 Indian Premier League which was mentioned above, it will help a lot if we can use collapsible boxes or other idea is to move entire scores to a new wiki page and just keep Group Stage summary table that's already present in the page? I don't think that many people will specifically look into each and every score. We can just keep knockouts (play-off stage) I guess. Just a thought. Sagavaj (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There's an argument that this would be better served by an external link. Or possibly by completely collapsing the section other than the knock out games using Template:Collapse. I imagine that there would be objections from people that want to see lots and lots and lots of match scores and no prose in articles though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing LGBT related cricket articles and LGBT cricket biographies

I have noticed that there is only one LGBT related cricket biography relating to a former Bermudian cricketer Linda Mienzer. Are there any more cricketers who are related to LGBT? I am not quite sure whether LGBT sportspeople are allowed to play international cricket. Abishe (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Lesbian, gay and bi sportspeople are definitely allowed to play international cricket (e.g. Steven Davies and Alex Blackwell), but if you're talking specifically about transgender sportspeople I don't know whether they're allowed to or not. TripleRoryFan (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not notable as a cricketer but Cate McGregor has played club cricket identifying both as male and female. Hack (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not many cricketers, especially internationals, are out. The Steven Davies article has sourced information that when he came out in 2011, he was the first international to do so. That's only 6 years ago. Astonishing really. I'm guessing that'll change with time. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And the Blackwell article says she was the second, and that was only 4 years ago! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Cricketers who fall under LGBTQ are definitely allowed to play cricket. For 'Transsexual', maybe not? Störm (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If anyone knows about any other LGBT cricketer then add him/her to Category:LGBT cricketers to ease up the navigation. Störm (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added Lynsey Askew, who is married to Alex Blackwell, to the category. Also Elyse Villani, after adding some information and a source to her article confirming that she identifies as gay. Jellyman (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

With regard to Linda Mienzer, the sources given indicate that she is gay, but there is absolutely nothing to support the assertion by the article's creator that she is transgender. This is a pretty major thing to get wrong in a BLP, and certainly not something that should be left in with a "citation needed" tag, as had happened. I've now removed the claim from the article. Jellyman (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

All this "does not meet GNG" nonsense

Okay. Let's take this slowly.

"If a topic has received significant¹ coverage in reliable sources² that are independent of the subject³, it is presumed⁴ to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

• ¹ "Significant". A completely nonsense, cloudy term which has no actual meaning and can be interpreted a million different ways by a million different people. The fact that we use the two most trusted online databases to back our information up is completely lost on the people who quote this criterion. This is the epitome of "significant", the modern-day equivalent of keeping everything in books rotting at the back of a shelf.
• ² "Reliable". As reliable as any online database edited by dozens of people all over the world can be. Or indeed any secondary source by which we may work, which may have been filled with POV puffery by anyone who may have initially contributed to it. It is well believed that Wikipedia is not enough of a "reliable" source of its own and the fact that people quote it in all kinds of academic disciplines is, in many cases, completely discouraged. Thereby to refer to something as "reliable" in a context which very few people in the public eye can actually regard as "reliable" is complete nonsense.
• ³ "Independent of the subject". If you need convincing of this then really to have hundreds of contributors all over the world contributing to these databases is evidence enough. The people who maintain these sites volunteer their time to do so just as people spend their time whining about articles on here.
• ⁴ "Presumed". A completely nonsense weasel word. It either "is" or "isn't". No "presumed".

GNG is nonsense. Anyone who is unwilling to work to SSG is in gross violation of NPOV, the policy we all learn on our first day on the site. This is disregarding the fact that this guideline is utterly contradicted by WP:SPORTSPERSON, rendering both so-called "guidelines" complete nonsense vis-à-vis each other. Bobo. 11:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Let's take this slowly.

"If a topic has received significant¹ coverage in reliable sources² that are independent of the subject³, it is presumed⁴ to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

• ¹ "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
• ² "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
• ³ "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
• ⁴ "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

GNG is well-defined, and a key part of the overarching WP:N. Anyone who follows it is creating a well-referenced, article that clearly defines its subject and what makes the subject notable. There are plenty of other guidelines which strive to define notability, and these can all be considered, despite sometimes giving contrary advice and information. Harrias ^talk 17:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

GNG is not well-defined, and the fact that we use it in order to breach NPOV is a disgusting blot on our project. This project has become Frankenstein's monster and that is truly, truly saddening. There is no point creating any more articles on any further first-class non-English players as they will just get deleted because "lol gng". The very fact that you are admitting that these POV guidelines "strive to define notability" and clearly fail to do so because they are being blatantly contradicted proves that no good is being done with them. Bobo. 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding 4, or that it should merged into another article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"GNG is nonsense." - Well try starting a proposal to change it at the GNG page. However, there's more chance of a Test match starting in my nearby park today, once they've cleared the snow off the ground. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's changeable. Absolutely not. Things that are broken on Wikipedia are broken for the sake of the project. The fact that it is directly contradicted by other "guideline" pages proves that there is no such thing as consistency. Which is more important in terms of Wikipedia as a project? GNG or NPOV? Bobo. 10:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

CricketArchive ...

...at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CricketArchive. If anyone has an opinion one way or the other...

In other news, can anyone confirm or deny whether B. W. Wijetunge (also at AfD) is the Bernard Wijetunge (Jr) who played for St Peter's College and Old Peterites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.74.175.21 (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted! Someone needs to fix the template {{Cricketarchive}} to remove the redlink (it's protected, so I can't). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts I put a template editor edit request for that change. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Bad news. I'm in no doubt that it's notable, even if acceptable citations seem to be hard to find. It seems ludicrous that Bloggs of Blankshire, who played one f/c match in 1891, should be notable but CA is not. JH (talk page) 10:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree this is bad news. Ironically, ESPNcricinfo, which I regard as an inferior source of cricket data and stats (though better on news and features), will survive as a standalone article because the various financial machinations that saw it end up in the ownership of Disney and Hearst have been externally recorded and are therefore quotable. Johnlp (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well having an article says nothing about its quality of data. ESPNCricinfo is farrr more popular than cricketarchive - which is only really used by cricket stat nerds. If one wants to know that "it is the most comprehensive.." yadda yadda one can visit the website itself. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If anyone feels strongly about it being restored, ideally with any extra sourcing found beforehand, then please take it to deletion review. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that deletion review is not for re-arguing the AfD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Australia national cricket team squad

I recently updated this template but was thinking it's a bit of an unusual one since national teams don't really have a national squad, especially across all three formats. I was wondering what people here thought about it. I was thinking of splitting it into three templates, one each for Tests, ODIs and T20Is and taking the original to TFD but I wasn't sure if there should be three more navboxes inserted in some articles, and even then it would need to be updated ahead of every new tour the team goes on. No other national teams have this navbox, so it could also just be deleted altogether. As it is now it's a bit unwieldy with 31 different players on it. What are other people thinking about it? TripleRoryFan (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

As you say national teams don't really have a squad. They may have a squad for a tournament or a tour, but a home side just now doesn't have a picked squad as such - players may be regulars, but they will come in and out of the team as required. Why have any template in that case? More often than not they aren't accurate and are suggesting something exists that actually doesn't. I'd get rid of all of them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it looks like OR pretty much. Should be deleted as there's no RS that describe a "Aus nat cricket team squad", and yeah it doesn't make any sense. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright I'll take it to WP:TFD. TripleRoryFan (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

If anyone's interested in discussing it at TfD here is a link. TripleRoryFan (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

"Sub-minimal sourcing"

Can someone please scan through the lists of articles on single countries' Test cricketer articles and ensure that these articles don't suffer from the same "sub-minimal sourcing" as any other articles which may be argued? Right now I could go to an article such as Fazl-e-Akbar and say "I'm voting this for AfD because there are no sources/external links".

Admittedly I set up Fazl-e-Akbar's article, 13 years ago, unintentionally neglecting to insert the external links, but as per the usual arguments, "Surely 13 years is long enough to find sources!!!" (By which I probably mean "People have had enough time to do so by now..!") There are dozens of other examples for every Test-playing nation. Bobo. 10:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Fazl-e-Akbar has a prolific first-class record. He has taken 600 wickets with 37 5W-hauls. Will be a very bad choice if someone AfD him blindly. Störm (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

With things being as they are, I wouldn't put it past anyone! Bobo. 16:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it just me

I'm not crying or anything, just feeling frustrated. Is it just me or am I starting to feel victimized? If we had had a rule all along that only cricketers from majority English-speaking countries had been allowed, this disgusting hacking down of cricket-player biographies would not be happening. What in the name of heck is happening to our project that we're allowing this to happen - by members of our own project. Truly disappointing. It's amusing how quickly this project has gone from "WP:CRIC is way too inclusionist" to precisely the opposite. We've been accused for so long of having an inclusionist cabal - why is the opposite now not true? Pure hypocrisy.

The fact that this is happening after eight years of these articles being on Wikipedia is not even the point. Bobo. 09:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion on the seven Sri Lankan cricketers up for deletion may have taken an interesting turn. Why not spend a bit of time improving the referencing on the huge new batch of first-class cricketers under threat? It could help your cause. Johnlp (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If "please include a reference to CI" had been the solution all along it would have been politely pointed out to us all instead of mass-sending everyone to AfD. Sadly this will presumably still only be seen as "routine aggregated coverage" and still be attacked. Bobo. 11:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. But also converting "External links" to proper inline citations and a reference list might help. Johnlp (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't really make a difference to the content of the articles. If those who were sending the articles to AfD really considered this the problem they would have done this themselves and been cool with it. Bobo. 11:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not member of this project and have little or no interest in it. But I hate mass bundling of nomination like is being done now. And hope it will stop. But for the meantime my suggestion is to try to improve any article one is interested in (although we don't own them). To be candid, I hate articles of these players lingering with one citation (which is actually only there to prevent deletion, not build real biography), and Cricket and Rugby players are the typical example of such permanent-stubs. Also I think any player's bio which cannot be expanded beyond such official statistics, is better to left to be deleted, because it is not worthy to write wall of text to argue on that needlessly. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps if this had been pointed out to me by the currently fervent deletionist cabal (not including yourself Ammarpad, with the greatest of respect these users have been around longer than you), eight years ago, then this could have been avoided all along. Sadly I have a strange feeling that even if I had included references to both, this would still not have been seen as satisfactory. Bobo. 11:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

What I also find interesting is that several of these deleted articles still have, or in some cases already did have before I wrote them, articles of their own on other language Wikipedias. I wonder if other language Wikipedia projects have different article inclusion guidelines or anything as nonsense and flimsy as GNG to fall back on. Surely in the light of all this rule-buggery, the only relevant policy (considering that GNG is as much a guideline as CRIN or any other) is NPOV... Bobo. 11:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Bobo192 For me, sadly all are going to have similar fate. All work written by you is not yours or mine but it is in public domain. With time policy change so the criteria. You and I can't defend them forever so I will advise leave them as they are. Whatever people want to do will do without looking at CI or CA. You had done your job well thats it. Störm (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Reading those two multi-article AfDs, it appears that WP:V is being brought in and I'm afraid many of our articles have no defence against that. Johnlp is right that all articles MUST provide inline citations. External links are the same as "additional reading" and don't qualify, as I've pointed out in the past. Anyway, I'm on holiday and I'm pissed off with this site so I'm away again. Jack | ^{talk page} 01:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Unable to find any record

Of this cricketer - Sumit Sharma. Unable to find him on ESPNcricinfo or in the services squad.... Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There are two biographies on Cricinfo for individuals with the same name [1] and [2], neither of which are for this article. Only the latter has played first-class cricket. Doesn't seem to exist on Cricket Archive either. Seeing as the article claims they've played in a recent-ish edition of the Ranji Trophy, but there's no record of them, it looks like a hoax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

And here's all the players who represented Services in that edition of the Ranji Trophy. He's not one of them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Yeah that's what I though so. The creator of the article being "sumit764" makes it likely that the only Sumit Rajendra Sharma is him..have PRODed it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No probs. I reckon it could be speedy deleted, based on the lack of sources and the false claims in the article (number of innings/centuries, high score, etc). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Need to AfD

Anyone having free time may nominate this bundle of articles or either redirect to T10 League. They are:

• Kerala Kings
• Maratha Arabians
• Pakhtoons (sports team)
• Punjabi Legends
• Team Sri Lanka
• Bengal Tigers (sports team) Störm (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess they can all be redirected as possible search terms. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I also think redirecting them will be better. If other people agree then I will redirect them. Störm (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Also agree with redirection. Not notable enough for separate articles, but may be searched for and can be covered in the context of the competition. Jellyman (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I've redirected them all. See how long that lasts... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also been following this one after Pakhtoons and Tigers turned up as links to dab. Is T10 the best destination for Bengal Tigers (sports team)? We also have a Bengal Tigers (Cricket team) redirecting to Celebrity Cricket League. Certes (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Both of those should probably redirect to Bengal Tigers, and I'll add a sports teams section to that . I'll fix it later. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if there are other teams with that name, then change it to the dab page. Didn't think of that! Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

CricketArchive and CRIN

I haven't much time to spare as I'm not at home but, looking in, I see all sorts of trouble for many cricket articles. There are two multi-article AfDs which will probably remove a large number. My position is and always has been that I absolutely support WP:V and there is no excuse for failure to provide verification. My reading of those two AfD pages tells me that a new strategy is unfolding and that WP:V is coming in as the heavy artillery to replace the tired old notability thing. I'm not going to take part in either discussion but as far as I'm concerned, anything which fails WP:V (or WP:OR or WP:NPOV for that matter) must be deleted and that is a view I've always held. Notability is different and is nowhere near as urgent. It looks as if all these players are subject to WP:BLP which makes it even more important that verification is provided.

I notice in particular a view by BU Rob13 that we should "delete all which are sourced only to CricketArchive, which may not even be a reliable source and certainly doesn't satisfy WP:BLP". I am the main author of early cricket on here (anything up to 1825) and I've said many times that as as far as early cricket is concerned, I will not touch CricketArchive (CA) with a bargepole. Neither, for that matter, will I use anything from ESPNcricinfo except occasionally when one of their narratives adds a bit of weight, but I never use their statistical stuff in an 18th century article. Other CRIC members, who work on the game's later history and on the present day, swear by CA.

WP:CRIN is under fire again but none of its critics have actually proposed a solution or suggested any re-wordings. CRIN is not the actual guideline, of course. That is NCRIC which is really no more than a summary that equates to NBASE, NFOOTY and the rest of NSPORTS. CRIN provides the detail which a serious cricket editor might need so it is more of a help desk than an actual guideline.

We need to assemble ideas on how to improve CRIN (and, thereby, NCRIC) if it really is a problem. It might be that CRIN only seems to be a problem because of some people's interpretation and it could be that the real problem per se is one or both of GNG or NSPORTS. As for CricketArchive, we need to consider its reliability and whether it is appropriate as an article's main source given the needs of WP:V. Note that WP:CRIN does give warning about usage of the statistical sites and spells out the need for book sources.

I propose a formal discussion here about both CRIN and CricketArchive. This isn't just a matter for WP:CRIC and I would like to invite the following people who may not be CRIC members but have taken part in the two multi-article AfD discussions: User:Aftabuzzaman, User:Ammarpad, User:BU Rob13, User:Dee03, User:Inter&anthro, User:Johnpacklambert, User:L3X1, User:NukeThePukes, User:Power~enwiki, User:Reyk, User:Rhadow, User:Saqib, User:Störm, User:TheGracefulSlick and User:Wajidshahzeed.

Can we please have a rule that this discussion is used in a positive way so that people express a view about the suitability of CRIN and CA for verification purposes; and put forward any practical solutions. No ranting and raving about CRIC being a law unto itself, on the one hand, or about the destruction of CRIC on the other. Could any admins who are involved please ensure that people discuss the issues in a positive and respectful way?

I'll start the ball rolling.

In my considered opinion, neither of CA or ESPN should be the main source of any cricket article. Furthermore, CA should never be used at all in any article about people or events before 1826 (there is a valid reason for that date) and only with caution in any article between then and 1863 (again, there is a reason for that date). The same applies to ESPN re statistical material but its narrative pages may be used with caution if and only if it can add weight to a book source. From 1864 onwards, I believe both sites are semi-reliable but as such they are unsuitable to be used as main source and should only be included as secondary sources to add weight or to provide a reader with, say, a scorecard (although CA is now a subscription site). There is and never has been a substitute for book sources in cricket and, lets be honest, those two sites are themselves tertiary sources just like Wikipedia.

Turning to CRIN, I do not believe there are any fundamental issues with it but it is not carved in stone and it is amended a few times each year. If some people interpret it wrongly that is their problem. One thing I will point out is that there are people in CRIC (especially myself and Lugnuts) who frequently use CRIN at AfD to get articles DELETED because they fail CRIN. That seems to pass unnoticed. As for NCRIC, it insists like CRIN that a player must have made at least one top-level appearance. It does not seek to supersede any other guideline and it merely says that anyone who has played in a top-class match is presumed to be notable by CRIC. How it is interpreted is not the guideline's problem because it equates to the other main NSPORTS SSGs in terms of the one-match criterion. If all of these SSGs are wrong, then an RfC is needed at NSPORTS overall or at GNG overall.

Okay, that's it. I will let you all have your say now. I may not be back on here for several days or more. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

For modern players, book sources are unlikely to provide much information, and so basing an article on ESPNcricinfo (match reports, prosaic player biographies etc.) is perfectly acceptable. Obviously, per WP:ONESOURCE, we should be providing at least two sources irrespective, particularly as they will almost all be BLPs for this era. Harrias ^talk 09:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We've been doing fine for the last 13 years. Anyone who disagrees with CRIN is being disruptive to the aims of the encyclopedia and is trying to destroy a project we've been working on for all this time. Anyone who disagrees with the guideline of CRIN also disagrees with the fundamental rules of BIO and NPOV.

If the same thing were happening with NFL, NBA, NHL, or MLB players, these users would probably be either castigated, Wikiproject-banned, or permabanned for disruption. The fact that any source will have a non-zero unreliability rate unfortunately has to be taken as read if we're working on the basis of having to work by secondary sources.

We have become Frankenstein's monster, destroying that which we love. And that is disappointing. Bobo. 10:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The fact that so many people have said, "Wahh! CRIN is way too inclusive!!" and not been able to provide a single, NPOV, workable solution is equally disgusting. "Okay, what's your solution?" "Um... dunno." I still stand by my belief that GNG is biased nonsense which we are attaining anyway by working by CRIN. And again, the fact that the two main notability guidelines (GNG and BIO are as much guidelines as CRIN) are completely contradictory is disappointing. The only policy we should be working towards is NPOV, the policy we learn on our first day on the site. And this has been grossly overlooked. Bobo. 10:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It is a shame to see 13 years of work dying a death of a thousand cuts (the stream of deletion notifications on User talk:Bobo192 is a crying shame, and verging on harassment) but perhaps lists of players will be a better solution for the more obscure ones about which it is difficult to find further information? (I'm sure such information would be turned up, if enough effort was spent to look in the right places: often offline sources in a distant country in another language. No doubt many of the "one match wonders" are prominent members of their community, notable in other ways.)

I wonder if the same issue applies to other sports. There must be plenty of people who appears only once for a major team, with no other claim of notability, sourced to a entry in a so-called statistical database. For example, Jon Ratliff? Joe Hietpas? George Washburn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.252 (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As I've said, if the same were to happen in any major team sport in the American sphere, I have zero doubt that the people involved in sending the players to AfD would be severely castigated and topic-banned. Thank you for finding, on such short notice, examples of players with such a record as I've been searching for all this time. Bobo. 11:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If I may apply a kind of "six degrees of separation" example, C. Sandanayake appeared alongside notable cricketer Indika Gallage in his only first-class appearance. Would Indika Gallage be able to verify this cricketer's name? "Ah yes I remember that guy, his name was..." (I'm stretching for the sake of verification but I hope my thoughts are understood...) If the only rationale for some delete votes is "Don't know the player's first name", this is depressing. Bobo. 11:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• We are in this jam because we have a nation of a particular size speaking a language other than English for which no one anticipated the consequences when WP:CRIN or WP:NFOOTY was invented. Compare Sri Lanka with Trinidad & Tobago, which doesn't consider intranational play first level. And they publish in English. Now we have a stack of players, mostly from Sri Lanka, who played once only. Truly, they are not notable, but for the sake of uniformity fans want them in Wikipedia. The articles on the club teams are short; list these stats-only players there. That includes the ones for whom we know their names but have no newspaper articles. If the team article gets too long, make a List of Colts single-appearance players. Convert existing articles to REDIRECTS. Require a citation per entry on the page. The minimum standard for a standalone article should be a textual article supported by a statistical entry. No stats-only articles. Publish the standard for the team articles and let the bad articles migrate to the team articles over a period of years. Admit that this is a divergence from the standard WP rules. Document the fact that this agreement was reached with editors outside the cricket sphere so that future arguments can be settled quickly. One of the attempts earlier to stymie this effort was a call for the team articles and lists to be inclusive from the start. A permanent record would stop the argument of the hour. Rhadow (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. We are in this situation because nobody can follow NPOV. This isn't a "divergence". This is a disgusting violation. "If a team article gets too long"? We wouldn't include lists of players in a team article anyway, these would go on a page such as List of Colts Cricket Club players, not of "Random list of players which we've cobbled together, against the principles of NPOV, based on those we've decided to delete because we're flouting basic guidelines". We've had these guidelines for as long as WP:CRIC has existed - a single first-class cricketing appearance, and I believe Jack or any other long-term participants will back me up on that. The fact that people turn up over ten years later and say, "I'm not happy"... where were they ten years ago when these things were being decided? What is their NPOV solution with regard to CRIN? (GNG and BIO are both guidelines so that is not a viable argument, GNG is merely an excuse to violate NPOV). Bobo. 13:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo192: What makes you say that those who don't like how inclusive WP:NCRIC is are in breach of WP:NPOV? Harrias ^talk 13:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand your question. Either everyone with a first-class appearance is notable by CRIN (by way of NPOV), or nobody is. GNG is as much a guideline as CRIN, the fact that GNG completely contradicts what is present on other guideline pages is not relevant in this situation although in any normal situation it would nullify both arguments equally. Bobo. 13:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Bobo192, I have amended my last post to add "WP:NCRIC" in, so hopefully it makes sense now. I just don't understand your argument that wanting a less inclusive guideline breaches our neutrality policy, which primarily refers to article content, not inclusion criteria. Harrias ^talk 14:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Methinks there are some who would rather argue this topic than come to an agreement. One editor's name appears 29 times on this page. I propose alternate debate rules here. After you make your case, keep quiet until you make a single summary argument at the end. Rhadow (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Flying visit. I agree with Rhadow that all should state their case and then withdraw until making a closing statement at the end. That is how a discussion like this is done in a professional environment and we should try to be professional too.

Having said that, I'm somewhat concerned by a comment I read above that the only policy we should work towards is NPOV. That is not so because NPOV is one of three core content policies along with WP:V and WP:OR. Site rules are explicit in stating that "these policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another". WP:V is essential because it is the machinery by which the other two can be identified and WP:V is the big issue in numerous cricket articles which do not provide citations. WP:V signposts notability because, without it, there is no way of knowing if a subject is notable or not. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe I'm slightly off with that one. However, NPOV is the policy we learn on the first day of participation on the site, and is the easiest one to follow in principle. Bobo. 17:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Trying not to rant and rave, I think these GNG4Life people need to just realise that the RFC is not as powerful as they think it. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This RfC? Which also states in the closing notes - "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations" Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Can also see User talk:TonyBallioni, where interesting discussion is there, and he says the close was extremely bad. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:PAYWALL, part of the WP:Verifiability policy, a source shouldn't be discounted because it's difficult to access. If you're going to use CA as a source, cite the actual page you used. This has been a core part of Wikipedia from the beginning. Hack (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Apart from Cricinfo, CricketArchive we should find tertiary sources in addition to the above websites. I believe sources like CricHQ, PCB, Cricbuzz Howstat would be very useful and effective in the WikiProject Cricket. I sometimes refer to CricHQ and PCB to create articles related to Cricket. Bobo deserves the credit for his great efforts in creating these biographical articles related to cricket. This is due to a major misunderstanding between WikiProject Cricket and those who are not part of the WikiProject Cricket. Soccerway, Footballdatabase etc are some of the football databases that I have come across when reviewing new articles related to footballers who are not much popular in the sporting world. But why, Cricinfo and CricketArchive have been ignored by the AfD nominators. Abishe (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If these sites have anything pre-21st century about non-Test cricket, chances are that they have nicked it from Cricketarchive or Cricinfo. Tintin 01:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

We need to revise where appropriate and then hold an RfC to determine consensus on whether the revision meets community standards. We especially need to get to the bottom of whether experts agree that CricketArchive is a reliable source **as a priority**. Surely ACS or some of its more media-friendly writers have covered the site in their publications? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote in the Cricket Archive article before it was deleted, ACS's website talks in its Records section of the "unmatched database held by CricketArchive", and elsewhere it mentions how its own members' research is fed into CA and "helps CricketArchive to... keep their world-renowned database as accurate and up-to-date as possible". Cricket Archive's Philip Bailey, who has a WP article, has won the ACS Statistician of the Year twice (once jointly) and long-time CA co-ordinator Peter Griffiths won it once. Johnlp (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The ridiculous thing is that, for old England cricketers, Bailey et.al's Who's Who of Cricketers would pass the WP:V criteria easily. Yet Cricketarchive, which is maintained by the same person, with the same but updated+corrected info won't be treated as authoritative. One problem here is that the rules specified for one area of knowledge would not apply equally in every area. There is a second, more obvious problem, but I will leave that out of here. Tintin 10:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• My proposal is that we scap the cricket notability guidelines fully, and make all cricket players either pass or fall on the general notability guidelines. This would free us from lots of articles with no useful information on players, and focus our coverage only on the players who have received significant coverage in reliable sources, which is what we should be creating articles on in Wikipedia anyway. On another note, Wikipedia is not built on primary sources, but secondary sources, and this important point seems not well grasped by those above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not really a "proposal". That's selectively deleting 13 years of history based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We do not use primary sources in our articles and to suggest we do so is not just clumsy but downright deceptive. If you wish to hack articles down because of this criterion then please do. But to turn up after 13 years and declare that you don't like the way we do things is... suspicious. Bobo. 04:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying really hard to stay out of this debate but you've been complaining non-stop that nobody's coming up with an alternative to CRIN. Whenever some does present an alternative you ignore it, start straw manning them, accusing them of IDONTLIKEIT and implying there's something untoward happening. "To turn up after 13 years" implies there's something wrong with someone having an opinion different to a consensus from 13 years ago. The wikiproject doesn't own any of these articles, so if they go against what the rest of wikipedia does then obviously something should be done about it. TripleRoryFan (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

What the rest of Wikipedia does? Name a single team-sport Wikiproject which works on different subject-specific article inclusion criteria. If someone came along and ordered that an American football, baseball, ice hockey, basketball, soccer player were deleted, they would be derided and probably ostracized from the project. Bobo. 06:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

If you found an NFL player who doesn't meet the GNG and you took it to AfD you'd get the same thing happening as is happening for cricket players now. TripleRoryFan (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No I wouldn't. I'd work on the same subject-specific article inclusion criteria which have done no harm over the time they have existed. Please find such an article of an NFL player which does not meet either subject-specific inclusion guidelines or the general notability guideline to prove your point. Bobo. 06:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't because I'd wager there aren't any, that's my point. CRIN is a far more inclusive guideline than the respective guidelines for most other sports. TripleRoryFan (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A single appearance in a match which is seen as "major" (or whatever term you wish to use). Identical to every other team sporting Wikiproject, no more or less "inclusive" or "exclusive". Bobo. 06:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" not every full member country of the ICC has fully professional first-class competitions, so not every first-class cricket match meets the same criteria as in other sporting codes. TripleRoryFan (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Trying to think of what countries' players I have added to based specifically on league competitions. England, South Africa, Pakistan, India, Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka. Do all of these count? Bobo. 06:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I never said anything about your articles specifically, I'm just trying to make the case that generally a single first-class appearance isn't necessarily grounds to say a cricketer meets NSPORTS in the same way that other sportspeople do. If it was, they'd probably all meet GNG and we wouldn't be having this big issue. TripleRoryFan (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In which case this is not about NSPORTS or CRIN but a violation of NPOV. Bobo. 06:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why NPOV is relevant to this, please explain. TripleRoryFan (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The trouble I have with saying GNG prevails over CRIN is that both are guidelines of what I see as identical standing. I feel the only policy we should be working towards is one of compete neutrality and the easiest one to use is the policy we all learn on our first day. Apart from this I don't see how any of our articles would be seen to fail GNG based on the fact that we need to ensure we include reliable sources independent of the subject, which - we all hope - all first-class cricketers' articles do. Bobo. 07:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That's talking about neutrality in article content, not holding different guidelines in equal weight. TripleRoryFan (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Which, we probably all hope, is what every cricket biography article does, whether it be an article based on a player who has made a single first-class appearance or an article based on a player who made 200 - presenting facts neutrally. I seem to remember writing an article about a guy who made 105(?) runs in the only List A innings in which he batted. I would love to know what the press made of that innings at the time! Bobo. 07:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The hard thing of course is maintaining NPOV on articles of players who do have exceptional statistical records, based on what secondary sources will have said about them in the years since their records have been available/present/made. Bobo. 07:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand what NPOV means for writing cricket articles, but I don't understand why you're saying it's relevant for inclusion criteria because I don't see the connection. TripleRoryFan (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, it is unfair to say "GNG trumps SSG because..." when GNG is as much a guideline as any sports-specific criterion, and the only policy in question is NPOV. Coming back to the original topic, NPOV should ensure that we use all of our usual secondary sources and ensure to cite appropriately. Bobo. 07:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to suggest that all guidelines are automatically on the same level as each other. Of course we should use secondary sources and cite appropriately, but that's WP:V not WP:NPOV, and NPOV as far as I see doesn't have any bearing on whether to include particular articles on Wikipedia or not. TripleRoryFan (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I would have hoped that by using our current guidelines and sources we are adequately meeting WP:V, otherwise there are a dangerous amount of non-Test playing first-class cricketer articles under threat - especially those who have only made a few first-class appearances. Thank you for helping me to remain rational about this, TripleRoryFan. I'm trying to see this from all sides, I promise. I've been promising to step back for the longest time but am finding myself unfortunately involved again. Bobo. 07:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Summary

• This is going nowhere and I suggest closure on the basis of status quo.

I agree with the points made above by Harrias and Dweller about the online sources. ESPN is of course acceptable in terms of its narrative content and, as it can safely be assumed that it does verify content, its statistical information is also acceptable (subject to editor preference, especially re period). CA is more difficult to assess and Dweller is right that it should be discussed separately by those who know the subject (and my take on it is clearly expressed above so go ahead without me). Re the ACS, I know this is unorthodox but I can tell you that my ACS contacts agree CA is fine for 20th and 21st century cricket; but be careful before 1900 and increasingly so the further back you go (I personally won't use it at all before 1840 and with caution between then and 1863).

One point that does need to be made is that CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo are INDEPENDENT of each other and of all other publications.

It would not be possible to "scrap" NCRIC without scrapping NSPORTS as a whole. NCRIC stands on the clearly-stated rule that a cricketer must have made one top-level appearance. This very same rule, subject to differences in wording and presentation, is equally the basis of WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NFOOTY, WP:NAFL, WP:NBASE, WP:NHOOPS, WP:NHOCKEY, WP:RLN and WP:NRU. These are ALL of the other team sports in which major team v. team matches are held. The individual sports differ, of course, but the sentiment is the nevertheless the same. Therefore, NCRIC complies with the rest of NSPORTS and to suggest scrapping it is not feasible. CRIN is nothing more than the detail of NCRIC and it is managed to the extent that is reviewed and amended every few months. There is no doubt that local consensus favours CRIN as written and revised because it is a useful document; no doubt that sitewide consensus favours NSPORTS as written unless and until someone succeeds with an RfC to the contrary.

I don't think this discussion has produced anything new. Same old, same old. I feel that I've wasted my time as usual and, looking around, I have the impression that this site (not just the cricket part) is sinking fast. This is where I get off. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)