Cricket Project‑class

This page is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Cricket To-do list: Article assessment Check Category:Unassessed cricket articles for class and Category:Unknown-importance cricket articles for importance: see Assessment Department for details Verifiability Update fair and unfair play, fast bowling, first-class cricket, googly, innings, leg break, limited overs cricket, not out, Pakistan Cricket Board, spin bowling, underarm bowling, wicket, and other fundamental articles classified by the WikiProject as high-importance so that they meet WP:Verifiability policy standards Cleanup There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format) Infoboxes Add infoboxes to the player articles found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes Cricket people Create articles about 19th century players who are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/19th century players Create biographies about Bangladeshi players from the task force redlink list Check the listing of key bios at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Key biographies and improve these to at least B-class. Create batting/bowling graphs for cricketers who have excelled in international cricket. Create articles for redlinks present here and here Cricket teams & countries Domestic cricket coverage is needed for Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe; Create articles from redlinks and improve existing articles in List of current first-class cricket teams; National cricket teams; Under-19 national cricket teams Create articles about cricket in these missing countries Create or expand articles on international tours from items in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles Create a link as such on Template:Cr-Aus/doc for Cricket Australia XI Images Add pictures (and remove template from address requests) in these Category:Wikipedia requested images of cricket people Add pictures for grounds missing photos from here On this day in cricket Expand the anniversary coverage for Portal:Cricket at Portal:Cricket/Anniversaries Umpires Expand ICC International umpire panel; ICC Elite referee panel; ICC Associates and Affiliates umpire panel Women Expand Women's cricket, Women's Test cricket and articles about women's cricket generally especially biographies and tours Update A number of lists need to be updated, can be found in Template:International cricketers and Template:National cricket captains Regularly updating cricketers' career stats. Other Export all cricket terms present in List of cricket terms to Wiktionary

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Template:OzTestCaptain Advert

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

100px|right|thumb|Flag of the Irish team

This symbol:  Ireland for the Irish team is appearing in articles. It is also available on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Team templates. However the source file (right) indicates that it is a non-free image. If it is not free, it shouldn't be widespread, as per the West Indies symbol. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't actually copyrighted. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text on "File:Cricket Ireland flag.png" states that it is copyrighted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that, but it isn't. E-mail Cricket Ireland if you want. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on us to prove that it isn't copyrighted though: as yet no-one has presented sufficient proof to show that. Harrias ^talk 15:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here link is a discussion on the deletion of the flag. This issue has cropped up MANY times and User:Andrwsc, who is concerned with the Flags Project on Wikipedia, has been very diligent in making sure this flag is not used. As you can see from the discussion, a consensus has been reached that the flag is not copyright and so the decision has been made that it can be used in Wikipedia articles. Waterhogboy (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not believe the image was beneath the threshold of originality to be ineligible for copyright, so I nominated it for deletion on Commons. However, the meagre discussion on Commons resulted in the image being kept. Therefore, we can use it on en.wikipedia for flag templates. If consensus on Commons changes in the future, then that would affect usage here. But for now, all is well. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a little surprised we still use the flags at all at WP:CRIC. Surely even flag supporters can see that unless you zoom in, the Ireland flag displayed above is completely ineffective, and is nigh on impossible to discern anyway. The only argument for flag use that makes me think twice is that they aid quick identification in lists/tables. This surely does not.—User:MDCollins (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple flags such as England and South Africa are easily recognisable at such a small size, but Sri Lanka's isn't and I'll be damned if I can tell the difference between Australia and New Zealand. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From numerous discussions, there is agreement that the West Indies cricket flag is protected by copyright and that whether or not we have permission to use it on wikipedia, we are prevented from doing so because the relevant license has not been obtained. The current flag has the current West Indies logo on it. The flag prior to the current West Indies Cricket logo was introduced had the previous West Indies Cricket logo on it. That logo was likely introduced in 1927 with the formation of the West Indies Cricket Board of Control although there is definite evidence of usage that I can find for 1933 (more in Evidence of Usage below). The logo (example here) was very similar to the modern logo and also most often placed on a maroon background. Both the 1927 date and the 1933 date mean that this logo is out of copyright.

With regard to copyright, Although 1 January 1923 is the current cut-off date for the Commons and is oft cited, the 1923 date does not apply to all copyright. It is a line in the sand that says that anything published before that date is in the public domain regardless of such considerations as whether the author is still alive. Then we need to ask if the logo/flag was first published in the US, and it was not, which would mean we have to defer to the copyright laws of the source country. This would be the country in which it was first published or if this is unknown the country which has the most significant contacts with the work. The West Indies has no copyright law as a single entity. Rather, the many constituent nations have copyright law. The West Indies Cricket Board is based in Antigua and Barbuda, so perhaps this would be the domain that we should look to for copyright law. Antigua and Barbuda copyright applies for fifty years from the end of the year of death of the author, editor or creator and if that is not known then fifty years from the end of the year of creation. Therefore, the case is strong for the original design being in the public domain.

With regard to evidence of usage, the logo is likely to have been created in 1927 when the West Indies Cricket Board of Control was formed. I have pictorial evidence of its use in 1933.

Proposal: We use the logo as used up to 1999, detailed above, on a maroon background as the basis for the icon we use for the West Indies cricket side. The logo is extremely similar to the current logo and at flag icon size would serve the purpose of representing the West Indies without causing confusion. Also, it has the excellent quality of being an official emblem of West Indies Cricket and therefore has not been made up, or an association invented. There is also some level of precedent for this approach in the strikingly similar case of the flag used for the Ireland national rugby union team where the icon used to represent the team on articles is the 1925 logo on the same background used in the current official flag.Kwib (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone from the West Indies Cricket Board seriously going to take legal action if we use the flag? I doubt it. At the very most they may request that the image is removed, but even this is unlikely. Bazonka (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? We aim to comply with our own free content rules for our own reasons that relate to the very core of this project and not just because we don't want to be sued. Besides, it is unlikely I would face legal sanction for downloading pirated music but that doesn't make it OK. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mattinbgn, this is all about risk management. We should stop the hand-wringing where the risk is miniscule and just get on with making articles look better. I understand your point about downloading music, but there you are potentially depriving the artist of income; here that's not the case. (PS I am involved with intellectual property law in my day job so I do understand about these matters.) Bazonka (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am not proposing using the current flag. The proposal I have made above takes into account wikipedia's free content rules and is compliant with them.Kwib (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logo seems to have been in use since as early as 1923. (But I'm rather surprised that the copyright status of a logo is the same as the one of a picture.) OrangeKnight (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is most interesting that the use of the logo predates the formation of the WI Cricket Board of Control. Can you please clarify what you mean when you say that you're rather surprised that the copyright status of a logo is the same as the one of a picture? I am not sure I am following what you are referring to?Kwib (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expext in copyright status at all. But, if the logo of a company (for example) become "free", it means that anybody can use it for whatever purpose, even competitors. I thought (but it's only a guess) that companies could have a mean to "renew" the copyright status of their logo to avoid such a case. (I'm probably wrong, it is just what I thought). OrangeKnight (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing copyright with trade marks. In a nutshell (and there are nuances that I won't go into and don't profess to fully understand), copyright is a protection of artistically created stuff (e.g. a book or a picture), whereas a trademark (which may be a logo or a word) protects a company's right to market their products using it. A logo, for example, may be protected by both a trademark and copyright. Bazonka (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG for the pre 1999 West Indies flag, which is in the public domain, has been created. The use of this would result in a flag icon that looks like this: . I think that, as per the points made above, this would be acceptable to use. From what I have read above, there appears to be no objection to the use of the flag (only objections to use of the current flag); this is public domain, there appear to be no legal or copyright issues. Therefore, I propose that we should go ahead and use this.Kwib (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Shakib Al Hasan is currently a GA candidate, and at the review Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) commented on the unusual stats tables in the article ("I'm not a big fan of the two stats tables, but that could just be me. It may be better told in prose."). They're the ones with the titles [1] "Shakib Al Hasan's statistics on 1 October 2008", "Shakib Al Hasan's statistics on 22 January 2009", and "Shakib Al Hasan's performance in Tests in the term covered by the Wisden award". As I explain at the review:

They contain statistics at key parts of Shakib's career, so: 1) before New Zealand toured in October 2008, at which point he was considered a "batting all-rounder" 2) the day he was first ranked the number one ODI all-rounder, showing a substantial change in figures between the two dates and 3) his stats that earned him the Wisden award. For me, the tables marked an easy way to highlight what I thought were important figures without bogging down the article with more "scored xyz runs at an average of wx,yz". I've not seen this done anywhere else (well not in article's I've not edited, I've tried something similar to this elsewhere) and thought it was worth the experiment.

I thought I'd bring the issue here over how useful they are as GAs can form a template for how newer users expand articles. Nev1 (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nev, a nice experiment. However, I'm not sure. It could look like the tables are there set at arbitrary dates; glancing the article does tend to draw the eye to them, and without reading the context properly it may well seem a bit random (presumably what Sarastro was leaning towards). Looking at the article in the manner I just have, I would say they aren't necessary, and they are too spaced apart to allow any meaningful comparison. All that said, I have only looked at the article with a very general eye to see how it looks, and without reading the prose properly. If I had done so, they would probably have made more sense.—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, I've been reworking the article on the Bangladesh national cricket team and was wondering what people's thoughts are on what kind of stats (if any) should be included at the end of the article. The closest we have to a Test team GA is India which is a delisted GA; it doesn't have stats at all. At the other end of the spectrum is New Zealand which seems to be about two-thirds stats tables, so there's quite a range here and I'd like to aim for some consistency between articles. Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the majority of the stats should go on a seperate article. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the input guys. It seems that opinion is against the tables so I'll take them out. Worth a try I suppose. Nev1 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that a lot of articles on umpires have a relatively long controversy section combined of alleged (and not so alleged) wrong decisions. I was wondering if there was a guideline or rule-of-thumb used to decide what to include beyond WP:BLP and common sense. WP:RS is a given, but match reports tend to delight in highlighting the mistakes. I was thinking that poor umpiring decisions should not be mentioned unless it results in a sanction or reprimand from the ICC or at the minimum a formal complaint by a team (although those seem to made quite readily). I made a start on Billy Bowden, Daryl Harper and Steve Bucknor (diffs highlighted). If no one disagrees with the diffs I will work my way through the rest using the same approach. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree. Most of them will be written as recentism as they happen anyway. We need to be balanced - how many of Billy's "correct" decisions are mentioned? None. The only ones that are really newsworthy are those events such as ball-tampering-gate at the Oval.—User:MDCollins (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History was made today when Ireland defeated England by 3 wickets, with Kevin O'Brien making the fastest WC century ever. Congratulations to both. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the highest run chase in World Cup history and the highest total by an associate against a full member, beating (in both cases) Zimbabwe's 312-4 against Sri Lanka in 1992. We're very happy at CricketEurope, as you can imagine! Andrew nixon (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done Ireland and especially Kevin O'Brien. As an England supporter, I found myself very torn in the closing stages, half wanting England to win and half wanting Ireland to do so. For a while I thought we might be going to see another tie! JH (talk page) 18:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely they cannot ignore the calls for Test status now???? If only they'd beaten Bangladesh, they'd top the group now. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the saying goes, turkey's don't vote for Christmas! Andrew nixon (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely everybody must have read (or heard) Trent Johnston the other day when he wisely pointed out that Ireland needed a first-class domestic structure before they could play test cricket? Just to quote: "I think Test cricket is probably a good while away," Johnston told ESPNcricinfo on the morning after Ireland's win. "We need to get things set up back in Ireland, the infrastructure and first-class setup and that sort of stuff."

It's really kind of shocking that supposed cricket enthusiasts don't seem to know this and think that just because a team beats another in one-day cricket then it automatically means they should play test cricket. At least Johnston seems to be looking in the right direction; if he hadn't been then it would surely have been the case of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (both of which had 3-day domestic cricket years before becoming test nations) being the last test nations as the rest of the cricket world continued in (blissful?) ignorance of the fact that first-class cricket (3- or 4-day cricket) is a pre-requisite for playing tests.72.27.24.211 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very true Andrew. Wouldn't suprise me if Ireland were next door to India, India would be touting for their promotion to Test status. Also, had a look at the page views for KOB and on 1 March 98 people viewed it, yesterday 18,400 did!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done to Ireland; I'm still a bit shell shocked. I wanted Ireland to do well, and it's great they've embarrassed the ICC with their cynical structuring to prevent upsets and the exclude Associates next time round, but why couldn't they have beaten Bangladesh instead of England! Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What now? Harrias ^talk 21:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is doing the job of a category. I'd be tempting to WP:PROD it rather than go straight to AfD. Nev1 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a dissenting opinion from this corner. I don't think it is the worst way of bringing these lists together. There are Category:Lists of lists so these types of pages must be used usefully somewhere, although this one needs the redlinks removed - for a start. I suspect that an AfD for this list would likely close as "keep". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me the main benefit of lists over cats* is that they allow sorting, trackability (easier to see additions/deletions), more info than just article title to be shown and sub catergorising on a single page, rather than on many pages. In this case only the last criterion applies, but IMO, it's enough for a hypothetical !keep from me too.

• Not that I'm anti cats, both have pros & cons and both should be used! The-Pope (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for not getting rid of it is that it is a very valuable member of List of lists of lists, possibly the best article on wikipedia! Jenks24 (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, Adrian McCoubrey seems to be attracting an awful lot of IP vandalism at the moment. Can people keep an eye out? Andrew nixon (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the persistent IP vandal, and have watchlisted the article. If it gets much worse, I'll semi-protect the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted it to an edition from last November which seems to be the latest with no vandalism in it. Even the recent reversions hadn't picked up everything! Johnlp (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm compiling a list of Hampshire first-class records of which I'm currently on the partnerships section. The record partnership for the 11th wicket (it was a 12 per side match) in the match between Hampshire and MCC in 1880 is unknown. I've looked through numerous possible sources and found nothing - can anyone solve this enduring mystery???? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that the score at the fall of each wicket was not recorded by the scorers, which I believe was not uncommon back then. I had a look at CricketArchive's version of the scorecard, and none of the FoW scores are recorded. We can put at upper bound on the last wicket partnership of 56, as the highest Hampshire individual score was 31, the number 12 made 9* and the innings had 16 extras. Hampshire CCC and/or MCC might still have the ordiginal scorebook(s), so if you want to know badly enough you could write to them. JH (talk page) 17:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know someone who works at the Rose Bowl, so I'll see what I can get them to dig up! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

via National Library of Australia eResources link to 19th C British Newspapers I've found that The Hampshire Advertiser published on Saturday 28 August 1880 carries a report on the match.

"Acton who came next made the highest score of the day, viz., 31, ...Lucas and Blundell only mustered three between them, and after Jellicoe had made a single time was called, the score standing at 169.

At noon on Thursday play was resumed. Harris and Jellicoe the not outs added 12 to the total of the previous night, and when Harris was despatched for a capitally made 28, the score stood at 181."

My reading of that is Jellicoe came to the crease just before stumps with score at 168. Therefore on the next morning the last wicket partnership was extended to 13. If you know of anyone with access to other local papers published at that time they'll probably be able to confirm - of course, info from a scorebook would be best source of all if it still exists. RossRSmith (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think the National Library of Australia link to the 19th C newspapers database works unless you are a local resident.

A UK person wishing to access the Hampshire Advertiser article may be able to do so via their university or local library: http://gale.cengage.co.uk/product-highlights/history/19th-century-british-library-newspapers.aspx RossRSmith (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed this oddity, mainly because it was unsourced and read peculiarly. It seems that it's been in the article since 2006. I used Google but was unable to find anything on the matter. Does anyone know if this is a hoax or just obscure? Nev1 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bit of a go at reformatting the main page for the project. If anyone is severely opposed to it, I won't be offended in the slightest if you just revert it back to the older version. The aim was to introduce an article alerts section, which hopefully we'll be able to use to monitor some of our articles more closely, and to get control of the list of featured material, which was quickly over-running the page. Harrias ^talk 17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Just wonder if the style guide and notability should be higher up the page and take more prominence?—User:MDCollins (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at Brabourne Stadium has been nominated for WP:Featured List status - the flc is ongoing here - [2]. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother everyone again, but I'm having issues with User:Ashwinikalantri... again! The problem is again at Template:Limited overs matches, except this time it involves some unilateral edits that the aforementioned user made and I objected to. You can see my objections and Ashwinikalantri's responses at Template talk:Limited overs matches. A third opinion would be very useful, as I don't think any final decision should be left to either Ashwinikalantri or myself. – PeeJay 21:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is quite frankly farcical. Although there is some discussion on the talk page, at the same time there was constant reverting across:

• 2011 Cricket World Cup Group A
• 2011 Cricket World Cup Group B
• 2011 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches
• Template:Limited overs matches
• Template:Limited overs matches/doc

I think part of the problem is Ashwinkalantri doesn't understand WP:BRD. As this needs to stop immediately and be resolved through the talk pages, if either of you makes another revert over this I will block the relevant party. Nev1 (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either I'm being stupid or... well I'm probably being stupid, but the picture of the 1998 Test has no border around it and no caption; can't figure why! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's sorted now. You'd just forgotten to make it a thumbnail. On the subject of Corky, I left a question on the article's talk page a while ago if anyone has an opinion. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]