Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageDiscussionTasksDeletionsThe NetsAssessmentResourcesContestsAwardsMembers

    [edit]

    Hello all. As a project we have 321 featured works, mostly featured lists. Where do we all stand with increasing this number, particularly for non-list articles? Does anyone have any up-and-coming articles headed toward FA status? Any particular areas we should focus on going forwards? AA (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've read several cricket articles which are either FA or GA, and haven't seen any significant difference in standard. I presume there are some higher bar FA criteria which some reviewers apply rigidly? I'd suggest the GA material (143 in total) is the best place to find FA candidates but, without knowing the criteria gap, I wouldn't be able to recommend specifics.
    The trouble with classifications like these is that a good article is a good article, and it is someone's opinion whether it gets published (real world) or featured (here). ReturnDuane (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like the avenue to go. I also think there should be articles we need to prioritise. For example, Shane Warne, or W. G. Grace, so historically significant articles, or articles important to the game, such as Laws of Cricket. I'd bypass GA and head straight to FA. GA had me on hold for 5 months and a rather back and forth frustrating experience, which has put me off going back. AA (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean about GA delay. The oldest nomination there now is Atlanta Braves, since 22 February! I agree with your priorities, and Laws is especially important. Some major players including Bradman, Headley, Rhodes, and Hobbs are already at FA but, as you say, the likes of Grace, Sobers, Warne, Tendulkar, Murali, and a few others should ideally be there too. I might have more time for WP come the New Year so I'll think about adopting an article then. ReturnDuane (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again, AA. I was in a secondhand bookshop yesterday and saw the Grace biography by Simon Rae. It's highly rated and, having read the first three chapters, I think it's excellent. So, I'll adopt WG and, time permitting, see what I can do to improve it, but the main problem is its size. It's a big article about the Big 'Un. ReturnDuane (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have the Rae book, and agree that it's excellent. ISTR some years ago adding some stuff from it to the article. Checking, I see that Rae's name appears no less than 58 times in the article, so there must be quite a bit from his book already included, though most of it I think was not added by me. One surprising omission in Rae's book is that I don't think it mentions his football at all. JH (talk page) 09:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CricketArchive

    [edit]

    Some scorecards link to Cricinfo and some to Cricket Archive. I've got no issue with Cricket Archive except it doesn't allow you to see the card. I don't imagine this is a new issue. What was resolved previously? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They pay-walled their content 5-odd years ago, so the links are probably from before then. Liberal use of the escape key whilst the page is starting to load will let you see most stuff on there! Spike 'em (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Spike 'em! Should we switch over the links to cricinfo? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing inherently wrong in using WP:PAYWALLed references, though it's obviously easier to verify using non-paid content such as Cricinfo. There are 100s of pages linking to CricketArchive so would be quite an undertaking to replace them all. Spike 'em (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in case if someone is thinking about switching,
    Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If switching from Cricket Archive to Cricinfo, editors need to be careful that we're not using verifiability. Cricinfo does not list all women's domestic cricket tournaments, whereas I believe Cricket Archive does- so for many women's cricketers, Cricinfo is not a valid source for all of their infobox statistics. e.g. Nat Sciver-Brunt has Women's List A stats listed in her infobox, and those stats are not on her Cricinfo profile, as that only lists a handful of domestic T20 tournament stats and no List A (50 over) stats. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Hadi article once had a screenshot of his obituary in Indian Express that got deleted for copyright violation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Syed_Mohammed_Hadi.jpg If admins can still access it, can someone please share this picture (via web.archive, google photos etc). For reference; not for reusing in wikipedia. Tintin 16:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I can see the deleted image, and it contains nothing that would not be otherwise available in other reliable sources about Hadi. And no, I will most certainly not share it. For a start, please see WP:LINKVIO. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    LPL & BPL categories

    [edit]

    Both Lanka Premier League and Bangladesh Premier League appear to have teams that change their suffix every season. Looking at the cricketer categories for the LPL and we still have 'Galle Gladiators cricketers' even though the Galle team have had two new names since and probably a third on it’s way. To save future work of renaming and to remain accurate, would it make sense to simply rename the categories as Galle franchise cricketers, Galle LPL franchise cricketers or Galle (LPL franchise) cricketers? JP (Talk) 11:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Great proposal. I prefer your first option, without BPL/LPL/IPL, because even the leagues themselves get rebranded. We should roll it out worldwide, if necessary. ReturnDuane (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review request

    [edit]

    Hello all. Would anyone be kind enough when they have a spare few minutes to source review my FLC? Much appreciated in advance :) AA (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]