From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of English. de-3 Dieser Benutzer hat sehr gute Deutschkenntnisse. fr-2 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau intermédiaire en français. es-1 Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español. it-0 Questo utente non capisce l'italiano
Search user languages

Cricket WikiProject
Lead article talk Portal talk Root category talk Main project page talk  → Featured material  → Notability guidelines  → Style guide  → Quiz Announcements and open tasks  → Articles needing attention talk  → To-do list talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → New articles talk Article assessment talk Reviews talk Media talk Images talk
Project organisation Members talk Awards talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Templates Infoboxes  → Cricketer biography infobox talk  → Cricket team infobox talk
Studies General topics  → Administration talk  → Awards and rankings talk  → Competitions talk  → Controversies talk  → Culture talk  → Equipment talk  → Forms of cricket talk  → Grounds talk  → Laws of cricket talk  → Records and statistics talk  → Scoring talk  → Skills talk  → Terminology talk  → Women's cricket talk  → Years in cricket talk Biographies  → Don Bradman talk  → W G Grace talk Cricket teams  → England talk  → Hambledon Club talk  → West Indies talk  → Yorkshire CCC talk Cricket by country  → Australia talk  → Bangladesh talk  → England talk  → India talk  → New Zealand talk  → Pakistan talk  → South Africa talk  → Sri Lanka talk  → United States talk  → West Indies talk History of cricket  → Australia talk  → Bangladesh talk  → England talk  → India talk  → New Zealand talk  → Pakistan talk  → South Africa talk  → Sri Lanka talk  → United States talk  → West Indies talk
edit · changes

Contents 1 Miscellany 1.1 Archived Discussions 1.2 Welcome! 1.3 Other pages 1.4 Memberships 1.5 Presents 2 Messages 2.1 Earl of Sussex 2.2 Service Award 2.3 Single wicket 2.4 Re: Joseph Dennis 2.5 Henry Bentley (cricketer) 2.6 WP:AWB 2.7 Press release 2.8 References. 2.9 Rare Books 2.10 Beldam or Beldham? 2.11 Round in circles 2.12 Ashes series template 2.13 Templates on WP:CRIC#SCOPE 2.14 George Griffith (cricketer) 2.15 acs 2.16 Nice 2.17 Assessments 2.18 Hon. C G Lyttelton 2.19 Sorry to bother you, but... 2.20 Hello 2.21 Philatelic assessments 2.22 Welsh players 2.23 "Champion County" for 1872

[edit] Miscellany

[edit] Archived Discussions

• User talk:BlackJack/Archive 1: July 2005 – July 2006
• User talk:BlackJack/Archive 2: July 2006 – February 2007
• User talk:BlackJack/Archive 3: February – March 2007
• User talk:BlackJack/Archive 4: April – August 2007
• User talk:BlackJack/Archive 5: August 2007 – February 2008

[edit] Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Courtkittie 20:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other pages

• sandboxes 1 / 2 / 3 / 4
• gallery
• Wikipedia procedures
• commons

[edit] Memberships

This user is a member of WikiProject Philately, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's coverage of the science of philately. Please feel free to join us.

This user is a member of WikiProject Cricket, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's coverage of the sport of cricket. Please feel free to join us.

[edit] Presents

		The Oddball Barnstar
		For your contributions to articles on early English cricket Tintin (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		BlackJack is awarded this barnstar for his continued hard work in documenting the obscure parts of cricket. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

		Cricket barnstar
		Jack, great work on creating articles for all the English cricket seasons. And thanks for filling in our coverage on historical cricket, where we're often weak. Here's a cricket barnstar for you. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

		The Belligerent Gnome Award
		I, Dweller, make you the first (and probably only) recipient of the Belligerent Gnome Award for your, erm belligerent gnoming, which irritates some people some of the time, but is exceedingly valuable to the project. Dweller 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messages

[edit] Earl of Sussex

Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad to see that you've returned. I hope that you will stay around for a while. JH (talk page) 08:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I'm thinking of rejoining on an occasional basis. I've been very tied up with other matters for several months but should have more spare time going forward. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's good news. And thanks for the Barnstar! JH (talk page) 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Richly deserved. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Service Award

Thank you so much for the barnstar which I do not deserve as I have barely started on the site, but it does give me a feeling of encouragement. I notice that you do not have a service award on your page so I am presenting you with the bronze star. I believe you are qualified for this as you made your first edit in July 2005 and I am assuming that you have made well over 12,000 edits. Thank you again.

By the way, I placed it at the top of the page but the contents section gets in the way so I added it to your own barnstars instead. --Jim Hardie (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Jim. I must admit I've not seen these before but they're a good idea. I passed 12,000 edits a long, long time ago. The total now is 21,370. No wonder my keyboard is looking a bit worn! --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Single wicket

Knowing your interest in single wicket cricket, if you've not seen it already, there is a good article on an 1846 contest between Alfred Mynn and Nicholas Felix on Cricinfo today, here. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew, I'll take a look. Mynn and Felix played a number of games against each other, I believe. There's quite a lot about single wicket in John Major's book. All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this: Article from The Cricketer, September, 1963 by GD Martineau]. JH (talk page) 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent, John. Thank you. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 03:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Joseph Dennis

Thanks for the message and your interest. As requested, I have added a reference for Sutton's charming volume, The Date-Book of Remarkable and Memorable Events Connected with Nottingham and its Neighbourhood: 1750-1850. Sutton was a talented author, historian, editor, printer, stationer and journalist who wrote extensively about everything to do with Nottingham. He contributed to The Gentlemen's Magazine and was editor of the eye-opening tome Annals of crime in the Midland Circuit: From Authentic Records. We are in his debt. Best, Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I forgot to add to the above his most important contribution, Nottingham Cricket Matches. But I see that you have already included it and its publisher in the relevant articles.

Do you have Ashley-Cooper's Nottinghamshire Cricket and Cricketers? If not, I'll try to find the time -- unfortunately, I don't have much -- to embroider Dennis's article with it myself.

Kindest,

It is remarkably rare for a book that wasn't strictly a limited edition. Last copy I saw in a sale fetched £140!Longrunup (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Would that I could find an edition of Cricket in my cretinous corner of the globe. I see that the ACS has been good enough to digitise a few editions from 1882 -- but, annoyingly, not that which covered the Test Match. If you have any influence in those circles, some pointed rib-nudging would be greatly appreciated. Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Bentley (cricketer)

There's now a slight disconnect between the 68 games quoted in the article, and the article's CricketArchive reference, which gives 66. So a citation for the 68 figure might be a good idea. JH (talk page) 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it needs references to both of the CricketArchive pages that list his matches. This is a problem with CA, unfortunately, when you have players who took part in the "major matches" of the 18th century and then in "first-class matches" from 1801. In addition, this player was in the 1802 game that has only recently been discovered; CA have not integrated it into their match numbering system so it is among their "other first-class matches".

I've just started looking at players who were active around 1800 so I suppose this will become a syndrome. I'll make sure there are links to each matchlist page where it does.

I can't understand how any publisher, even in the early 19th century, would allow a book to go out with a title like Bentley's!

Thanks again. Best regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that book title doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, does it. :) It might be an idea for articles on players whose careers spanned the year 1800 to include a footnote to the effect that that CA's "first-class" matches only include matches from 1801, matches before that year being archived as "major matches". JH (talk page) 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll come up with a wording and use it for each one. According to my own statistics there are 79 players who crossed the divide. They include famous players like Beldham, Walker, Harris, Wells, Hammond, Boxall, Purchase (who began in 1773), Fennex and Beauclerk.

This is not including any who might have made their sole post-1800 appearance in the 1802 match which, like CA, I haven't assimilated yet :-) Regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AWB

Have a look at this sometime. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Press release

The press release is stated and dated in the ACS Journal. Being a press release, it's not made generally available. The source is a quotation AND the press release from the originating organisation and appears in the Journal with the relevant times etc. It did not appear in the general press due I suppose to its esoteric nature. Anyone wishing to check accesses that periodical. It is not self referential as it is a statement both of fact and it prints in full the provenance88.109.66.85 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC) should be Fieldgoalunit (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) forgot to log in.

Seems fair enough to me. Do you have the date of that journal and the date of the release? If we enter those into the citation they should suffice. Thanks again for your help. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone has found an online reference which fits the bill. Job done. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References.

On the point of references, your 1800-1815 is vague is respect of references. The excellent articles on early cricket reference your own work which in academic terms is incorrect. You compiled that work from other sources. One should normally refer to the first printed appearance. Sources are orginal(first hand work), Primary and Secondary. There is little original research on the project though a lot of hard work through P & S sources, especially by yourself.
In a way the copious use of cricketarchive is wrong. Mr Bailey took a lot, not all, of the scores from other sources where they were amended by other people. The career record of say Woolley is the result mainly of the work on the ACS Kent book a good few years ago(which never mentioned it sources!). If you see where I'm going, you cannot be pedantic to the extent you are when you, reasonably, use some second hand sources - who doesn't.
One might say this of Haygarth of course and whether Britcher filched his from another text has faded away in time. We must assume he was limited in his travelling and, a point I often make to Keith Warsop, may have missed chunks of unrecorded scores in the nether regions of the UK where the game may have been played such as mid-Wales(organised matches in 1830's & 40's no scores given before that except odd 1820's matches through Slaney's little book - surely something before then with several great Houses in the area). There is a book listed in Padwick of scores for Shropshire around this period but it is supposed now to refer to a later, handwritten book of scores from 1840-9. I wonder what is undiscovered.
Your articles on WP have meant that a vital part of cricket history is in the public domain. Some of them are without question the best articles on sport on this frankly variable project. I know full well you have the ACSCJ which contains the ICC announcement, please don't be silly about such things and demean your excellent, well written accounts of current knowledge of this period. Read together, it is fair to say that no other book is, or could be as comprehensive in its collection and dissemination of information on this vital period. And, as I say, it is far better written than dear old Major Bowen could ever manage.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the 1801-15 article. It needs a lot of work and is still only a stub, really. I can't decide if it will have the potential to be divided up again: it was originally 15 separate articles; just as 1816-1825 was ten articles at first. I am actually doing some research into 1801-15 at present to identify its debutants and I've reached 1814. I'd like to create articles about all the notable players from 1787 to 1815 as we are very sparse in that period on WP. I think we've done okay up to 1786 and just need to do some tidying up, although I still come across topics that have been missed: e.g., John Capon, which was a new piece the other day. I want to do something about Henry Rowett too, but it won't amount to much.

There is a point about sources on WP which is that editors are required to state the source where they personally found the material, even if that source refers to an earlier and more authoritative one. Most editors do that so you will at times see some quite bizarre sources being quoted (I once saw The Sun quoted as the source for a Test match!). But I have often referred to the primary source even without seeing it: I trust Mr Buckley and if he says he got it from the St James Chronicle then that's fine by me!

I think CricketArchive and CricInfo are extensively used because they are online and so easily verified, WP being very strict about verifiable sources. There have been cases where CricketArchive has been used to prove a player's existence when someone tried to delete the article for notability reasons. In fact, quoting CricketArchive in a biography doesn't help the reader much except to provide a statistical summary. A biography needs more about the man himself and the style of his play than his figures.

You make a good point about the early scorers. Britcher I believe was limited to London and I doubt if he made much effort to compile scores from elsewhere. Haygarth did make that effort. One thing that always strikes me in S&B is that he so often mentions, bemoans even, that another source exists and has different information. We are in the same boat as him: we have to make a choice about who to believe. Britcher is one of the options and sometimes the only option.

I'm afraid I personally don't have any copies of the Cricket Statistician any more. I gave them all away to another enthusiast who was interested in them. I still have several of the series and matchlist booklets.

I think it is important to get this sort of information, as you say, into the public domain. This is the beauty of the internet. The opportunity is there to get everything worth knowing off the musty shelves and into a repository where almost everyone can see it without hunting high and low.

Thank you for your kind words about my articles but there are several good contributors on here, especially the likes of Jhall1, Tintin, Blnguyen, Dweller, Loganberry and The Rambling Man.

All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rare Books

An interesting aside on this is the first part of WR Chignalls history of Worcs. It is meant to be rare and changes hands for big money but a shop in Evesham had 4 copies last year at £20 each.Longrunup (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's ironic. I used to live in Winchcombe once upon a time, just down the road from Evesham. I've heard of Chignall and I'll make a note to see if I can get a copy. There's a guy on here, User:Loganberry, who has done marvellous work on Worcestershire and its old cricketers. I think we have an article about every Worcestershire first-class player thanks to him. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beldam or Beldham?

Back when I was a lad, it was always "Beldham". Then it seemed to be decided that it ought to be "Beldam". I take it from your recent edit that "Beldham" is now back in favour again? JH (talk page) 16:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. George Beldam is interesting, as he is credited with being the first to take genuine action photographs of cricketers rather than the posed shots that had been used hitherto. JH (talk page) 09:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Round in circles

In Australian cricket team in England in 1880, in the "Only Test" is a Main Article link to 1880 Australia v England series. That link now redirects to English cricket team in Australia in 1880-81, which in turn offers a redirect to Australian cricket team in England in 1880. Some straightening out is needed! JH (talk page) 20:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, John. My head is going round in circles after this lot. What a mess. I took that main article xref out. I'd better see if there's any more. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ashes series template

Hi BlackJack,

I noticed you reverted my (and others') alterations to the template Template:Ashes series with this edit message:

"rv to original format by User:Moondyne to restore this template's intended use in compliance with WP Cricket convention".

You also appear to have removed it from use on a number of Ashes series pages (1948, 1989, 2002-03, 2005, 2006-07 and 2009)

Would you care to expand on your reasons/provide some relevant links?

Thanks, Juwe (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Juwe. The template was originally designed by Moondyne as a preceding and following box but it was changed without consultation to a collection of series dates, the vast majority of which are inevitably redlinks. Even the few that had blue links were mainly redirects. As for removing the template from individual articles, it is in many cases superfluous as another box exists and it would be better to expand use of this other box across all relevant articles (it is in fact rarely used because most of the articles are still stubs).

On a more general point, a few articles had been created which did not comply with WP Cricket convention in terms of naming or categorisation. As a result they were outside the mainstream and would not easily be found by readers: I actually discovered them when I was looking at one of the 18th century categories! I have not deleted any of this work, which is all useful though in need of thorough editing, but I have brought it into the WP Cricket structure by means of redirects and copies.

The non-Ashes series template needs some further attention because of redlinks and redirects. I didn't have time to do that last night.

Regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi BlackJack,

Thanks for your reply. I now see how the original purpose of the template was different to what it turned into. Like you say, there is a problem with redlinks and articles being only stubs, but hopefully with time this will be solved. Once the number of Ashes series pages increases, I think that there should be a place for both the original template and a new template based on what the template had become. For example, it is useful to be able to go straight from the 1948 Ashes page to the 1989 page or to see all the years Ashes series have been held while on any Ashes series page. I also now understand your point about duplication, although it seems this "other box" is just a bunch of code on each individual page which imitates the Ashes series template, rather than being a template itself. Maybe this code should be replaced by the Ashes series template.

Regarding the categorisation, I have noticed that many cricket categories are a bit of a mess and difficult to navigate. This could definitely do with cleaning up so that it is easy to locate all cricket (templates eg) which exist, grouped together in a sensible way. As you suggest, many categories seem incomplete, poorly grouped and difficult to find. You have referred to the "WP cricket convention" for naming and categorisation, but I can't locate anywhere which states what the convention for categorisation is. WP:Cricket gives a few guidelines on conventions for naming articles, but nothing about categorisation other than to "maintain an efficient and navigable category system". If there isn't a set of guidelines explicitly stating how things should be categorised (such as in the following example), then there should be:

• "Cricket templates should have the following subgroups: navboxes, team templates etc..."
• "Team templates have the subgroups: national teams, English county teams, Australian state teams etc..."

All the best, Juwe (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Juwe. Something I should have mentioned earlier is that there is another template into which the Ashes series have been integrated as a child section. This is Template:Non-Ashes Australia v England Test series‎. I've gone through this and directed all redlinks to the tour articles but I've left alone the six or seven links to existing series articles (e.g., 1948 series). As and when further series articles are created, the template can easily be adapted. There are still half a dozen redlinks because some of the tour articles were deleted a year or so ago due to being "insufficient stubs": we should have done some work on them but the anti-cricket brigade beat us to it.

It would be best to use this template in all the England v Australia articles. It is better than the international tours of Australia one which is too big. There used to be an international tours of England one but it was unwieldy and I think it got deleted.

I agree with everything you say about the guidelines in WP:Cricket which are often woolly (for which I am one of those responsible). We had a discussion on the project talk page many moons ago about categories throughout the history and competition subjects in particular. We came to broadly agree on the present structure for tours so that the reader can find a tour via both the host and touring countries: hence we have category:Australian cricket tours abroad and category:International cricket tours of England, both of which will lead you to an article about the 1961 tour, for example.

All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi BlackJack,

As you can see from the history, I actually created that "Non-Ashes Australia v England Test series" template to split it off from (what was then) the Ashes series template and display the non-Ashes Test series more prominently (while still having the Ashes Tests available by clicking "show"). I simultaneously updated the "Ashes series" template so that it hid the non-Ashes Tests and displayed the Ashes series on top of the navbox and unhidden (until then both were displayed unhidden). Basically the templates were (until your revert) 2 sides of the same coin.

While I recognise that categories in general might be useful to some people, the main use for categories to me is to see which tools, ie templates, are available for editing pages. If I want to find a wikipedia page about a particular tour or other aspect of cricket I can do so quite easily by searching the appropriate terms in wikipedia, or failing that in google. However, if I want to edit a cricket-related wikipedia page, it is extremely useful to know which potentially-relevant templates exist but extremely difficult to find out unless there is a well-organised and comprehensive directory of such templates. Unfortunately, this page: category:Cricket, isn't prominently displayed (eg on WP:Cricket) and doesn't even include this page: category:Cricket templates , which isn't prominently displayed either and isn't very comprehensive or well-organised. For instance, there doesn't seem to be any clarity on whether the first level of categorisation should be by types of templates (eg navboxes, infoboxes, scorecard templates etc) or by types of teams and the various competitions they compete in (eg English county teams, ODI teams and tournaments etc). Without a well-organised structure it is difficult to know which sub-directory to look in to get to a potentially-useful template and without a comprehensive directory it is hard to know if a useful template already exists, even if you haven't found it.

Regards, Juwe (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Juwe, I didn't look at the history of the non-Ashes template. I think it satisfies both needs and should be used throughout. It is very useful to see which series are Ashes and which are not as it isn't simply a case of post-1882, as many people believe.

I agree that the cricket project has underestimated templates. I've created a few myself and I see one of them was deleted while I was away from the site in recent months. I think the ideal for a reader is a combination of categories and templates. Categories have their uses for people who are browsing general topics, such as tours of one country by a particular team, but templates are right there on a relevant page with links to similar topics. Extremely useful to the reader. For example, I wrote a whole load of pages about 18th century venues and it seemed a logical step to have a template on each page that linked to all the other 18th century venues (including Lord's, no less).

I did a similar thing with 18th century players but that is the one that got deleted (because it was "ugly"!). There seems to be a mindset on here whereby players have to be related to their nationalities and clubs but not to their times. I do not understand that sort of narrow thinking at all. In cricket, the period in which a player was active is of paramount importance because of prevailing conditions. Grace's actual batting average was no better than one of the nonentities who played for the woeful England team of the 1990s but what sort of average would, say, Atherton have had on the uncertain pitches of the 1870s? And, conversely, what would WG have done on the modern flat tracks?

Infoboxes are a sore point with me. They were initiated a long time ago with the idea of showcasing statistical material which is often disputed or uncertain. I would do away with them completely but I'm afraid the consensus is probably in their favour. I recently removed one from William Beldham because it contained nonsense whereby the facts of the player's whole career had not been checked out.

Anyway, I've added category:Cricket templates to category:Cricket. It has more right to be there than the trivia in category:Cricket culture, for example. Templates certainly need a higher profile and greater use.

I think this has a lot of mileage and we can do much more with templates. Best regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi BlackJack,

Just a quick reply to your latest points.

• I absolutely agree about the relevance of time periods the inclusion of referenecs to them in cricket articles.
• Regarding categories, I can see that they are generally useful to some people and should definitely be retained. I was just giving my thoughts on what I personally find useful.
• I would be in the camp in favour of infoboxes as they can be very useful (as a reader) for quickly obtaining key facts about players, teams or tournaments. For example, wikipedia is a good place to compare Test batting averages of various modern-day players. However, I do understand your point about infoboxes and how facts about cricket in the 18th and 19th centuries might be less certain than facts about cricket today, especially considering that there was less formalisation of the rules of cricket and the categorisation of matches. Today it is clear when a match is a Test match, a first-class match, a List A match etc... I imagine that such things were a bit hazier 200 years ago.
• Finally, regarding my "non-Ashes" template, I agree that it does a reasonable job for all Australia-England series. However, there was a reason that I created it, and that was to have the appropriate asymmetry (between Ashes series and non-Ashes series) on the appropriate page, such that "non-Ashes" was more prominent on non-Ashes series pages and "Ashes" was more prominent on Ashes series pages (using the template that you reverted). It would seem a bit strange to have "non-Ashes series" emphasised on the page of a particular Ashes series. Hence I think that it is appropriate to have 2 templates (plus the original template that was the catalyst for this discussion) for England-Australia Tests.

BTW, I got your message on my talk page about the project scope and templates. I will contribute something to that discussion (although I will need to have a look at what cricket templates actually exist before I do so) and so this is probably a good place to end this 2-person discussion, unless you particularly want to respond to something I have just said.

All the best,

Juwe (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templates on WP:CRIC#SCOPE

Hi BlackJack, I think for WP:CRIC#SCOPE I think there should be 2 main points about templates, something along the lines of:

• create and maintain templates useful for editing and standardising cricket-related articles
• update and maintain category:Cricket templates as the comprehensive, well-structured and navigable category for all cricket-related templates

Obviously the first goal is an ongoing one and the second goal (as well as being ongoing) requires a fair amount of work dealing with existing templates. On the category page itself I noticed this:

Cricket-related templates The pages listed in this category are meant to be navbox (navigational) templates. If subcategories exist for other template types (e.g. infoboxes), they should be named as such and appear at the start of the subcategories listing immediately below this messagebox. Further template category notes This category contains pages in the template namespace. It should not be used to categorize articles or pages in other namespaces. μ = stub;  τ = template;  ω = WikiProject;  ρ = WikiReader To include a template in this category, add <noinclude>[[User talk:BlackJack|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude> to the end of the template code, making sure it starts on the same line as the last character of the code.

which I personally don't think is the right way to go. This approach leads to the mixing of subcategories of templates with actual navbox templates and is not a logical, clear structure. Instead I think that there should be (something like) types of templates (eg navboxes, infoboxes and whatever other types there are). The navboxes could then be subcategorised into "national team navboxes", "first-class team navboxes" etc, and the first-class team navboxes subdivided into "English County navboxes", "Australian State navboxes" etc, (some possible further subcategorisation if applicable), with the actual navboxes present only once you get to this stage (I realise that some degree of organisation has been done, but not in a comprehensive and systematic way). However, in order to have the best and most sensible structure, it is necessary to have a list of all the cricket-related templates that exist, and it might be a tricky process to locate all such templates.

Regards, Juwe (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Juwe. I'll update the scope to include your two points above which I entirely agree with.

I've been looking through the template categories and it reminds me of what the overall cricket categories were like two years ago before I overhauled them. With the main categories, I relied on the subject as the key sort factor (e.g., history, country, biography, admin, terminology, etc.) but I think you are right that here we need to sort by subject within type. I agree that infoboxes need to be kept strictly separate from navigationals, even if they provide the same information.

I expect there are many stray templates that are in non-template categories but I think all we can do is work within those categories and collect the strays as and when we spot them.

You've probably noticed WP:CRIC#EXTRAS which includes a short list (it should be much longer) of "deprecated infoboxes". I think one thing we should do straightaway is to create a new category called Category:Deprecated cricket templates under Category:Cricket templates and use it as a junk folder!

If anything, this could be an even worse mess to sort out than the main categories, but lets give it a go. Best regards. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start Juwe (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Griffith (cricketer)

Thanks for your assessment. I've attempted to introduce some structure, putting in section headings and moving one paragraph to a more suitable location. Perhaps you'd be willing to take another look at the article and see if it now merits a B? JH (talk page) 20:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It does. At first I thought these B-class criteria were too exacting but I've come around to the idea now and I even support inline citations! What a u-turn that is. I'm making my way through all the current B-class ratings to see if they meet the criteria: out of 58 of "my articles" that had previously been given a B, only five actually make the grade! Good work on Griffith, John. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) User:Robertson-Glasgow also deserves a lot of the credit, finding much of the information about Griffith's feats on the 1861-2 tour and about his big hitting. JH (talk page) 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] acs

thanks for that. I, like you, have got rid of my ACS stuff by and large and I forgot dear old Dennis Lambert and the Ad. The Kaye Book of CR's was a stimulus, as most certainly was Webber's book, I have that from several original horse's mouths. In a way(excepting cricket pre 1914) we're are no further on than 1973 because Mr Frindall is make arbitrary decisions and cricketarchive, particularly in respect of List A(of no personal interest0, has not really taken account of an ACS concensus(re- World Cup warm up, Fennar Trophy etc etc) I wonder if someone might fill out Rosenwater's biog. I met him once or twice and know those who knew him best. When dealing with personality it is difficult to give sources!Fieldgoalunit (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the Times obit might be the only good source about Irving Rosenwater unless there's anything in Wisden or one of the cricket mags.

I'm glad you mentioned the Fenner Trophy: we don't have an article for that yet. I'll make a note and see what I can do sometime. User:jhall1 would be interested in that as he did most of the work on the University Match, plus OUCC and CUCC.

The lack of consensus in the subject at large does make things difficult for us on here as we must quote a verifiable source. The problem is that two opposing sources are both verifiable so both versions can co-exist here unless we as a project take a view that one shall prevail. The problem then is consistency. If, say, we decide that CricketArchive is our default, what do we do when we know that CA has got something wrong? In the end, it comes down to the individual editor. Regards. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There's an obituary of Irving Rosenwater by David Rayvern Allen on the Cricket Writers' Club site: Obituaries. You have to scroll a fair way down tt find it. JH (talk page) 09:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in spite of its name I don't think that the Fenner Trophy had any connection to Cambridge University. It was a one-day competition (2 semi-finals and a final) played at Scarborough which happened to be sponsored by some firm called Fenner. JH (talk page) 20:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice

...to see you back in cricket circles, Jack. WillE (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessments

I'm impressed by the speed with which you've been doing these. You will hopefully have seen that, since you assessed Australian cricket team in England in 1902 a week or so ago, I've bow put it forward for an A-class review. The msjor change I've made is adding three photos: one of Darling, one of Trumper and one of Rhodes. (Unfortunately I don't think Wikipedis has any photos of Maclaren or Jessop that I could use.)

I've also commented on the other outstanding A-class reviews.

Seeing that Surrey CCC had failed its B-class review on grounds of inadequate structure and citations, I've been doing some work on it today. I think that I've considerably improved the structure, and I've added some in-line citations, though possibly not yet enough. In the process, I discovered that the match against Kent in June, 1846 that some sources (and the article) gave as Surrey's first f-c match is wrong. David Lemmon's Surrey history, confirmed by checking scorecards on CA, reveals that the first f-c match was actually against MCC the previous month. JH (talk page) 20:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that I might have done them a bit too quickly to get them out of the way so I won't be surprised to receive a few challenges. The main thing lacking was citations but quite a lot didn't have supporting materials and some were blocks of text with no structure. All those were easy to fail. Half a dozen were stubs!

I'm impressed by the way that Australian cricket team in England in 1902 has developed from a gap in our Ashes coverage only a year ago to where it is now. I shall certainly read it again.

That's very good research to find the Surrey v MCC game as I've certainly got in my own records that SCCC's first match was against Kent. Amendment will be made. Well done. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hon. C G Lyttelton

I see that Hon. C G Lyttelton is included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/redlinks. Am I right in thinking that this is the same person as Charles Lyttelton, 8th Viscount Cobham? If so, then there's already an article. JH (talk page) 13:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to bother you, but...

I would really like someone to look into an issue I've been having with a certain editor who has consistently used counterproductive debating techniques in discussions with yours truly. Would you be able to do this/have a word to him (or me if you feel I am the problem). I have just posted about the issue here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Article for Deletion: 2009 Indian Premier League. Thanks Juwe (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some people are counterproductive and difficult to deal with but at least in this case the AfD has been withdrawn. I see you've written to the WT:CRIC page, which is what I would have advised as there are several admins in the project. I'm not an admin myself and this should really be addressed by them. I can't see that you have done anything other than defend a legitimate article: my understanding is that the IPL will be repeated over the next three seasons unless it is media speculation I've read. I've had plenty of adverse discussions on WP and they are frustrating but it is best to put it behind you and move on. Best wishes. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi BlackJack,

Thanks for your reply. One reason I posted here was that I assumed you were an admin given the amount of work you put into the project, and I wanted to make sure someone other than myself and LeaveSleaves knew about our discussion. He only abandoned his previous argument with me after I had wasted much time and effort mounting up evidence that proved his claims baseless. My actions now are an attempt to cut this latest bout of unconstructive editing off ASAP, and to (try to) ensure he knows not to engage in it again. With regard to the issue, it is absolutely clear that the IPL will take place next year (and the year after). The initial player auction actually saw players signed up for the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons. LeaveSleaves' requirement that there be a statement by the IPL chief saying "We announce that there will be a 2009 IPL Season", was therefore quite absurd. It is analagous to the Premier League having to make a statement that there will indeed be a Premier League season in 2008-09 for this to be accepted as a fact. Anyway, I won't bother you any more with this matter, and hope that it is swiftly resolved.

Regards, Juwe (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I did apply for admin once during my early days on the site but I was turned down because I had spent all my time editing instead of completing AfD and chasing vandals! I had a couple of posts from others who pointed out how tedious admin can be and I decided to stick to editing. More fun and more productive. All the best. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Glad to see my Gnome award still gracing your userspace. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a permanent fixture :-) BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philatelic assessments

Replied here. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh players

Hi BlackJack, Just so that I know I'm not merely talking to myself (and because your comment about the Glamorgan page prompted my posts about Welsh players) would you mind taking a look here and giving an opinion one way or another? Thanks, Juwe (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Champion County" for 1872

It seems that we are currently inconsistent on this. The Champion County article says "Surrey (Nottinghamshire also supported)". However the Honours section of the Nottinghamshire CCC article gives the accolade to Notts and the Honours section of the Surrey CCC article does not claim it. Either the Champion County article or the Notts and Surrey articles ought to be changed, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know which. JH (talk page) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what's happened. The honours sections in each county article were created some time before a list was added to the Champion County article. The honours sections reflect CricInfo, whose list is based on Rowland Bowen's researches. However, when the 1864-1889 claimants were added to Champion County, WG Grace's list was used. You are quite right that we should be consistent and I think the point made in the Champion County article about using WG as the default is fair comment, so I would change the honours sections. WG was there and fully involved at the time; Bowen was not. What do you think? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to come down one way or the other. I wonder if WG's list was "all his own work" or was put together for him by one of his ghosts. Did he say what criteria he was using (eg fewest defeats or whatever)? Bowen seems to have been very knowledgeable but rather idiosyncratic in some of his ideas, from what I've read about him. The list back to 1864 which used to appear in Wisden was Bowen's. I've just looked on CricketArchive, to see whose list they favour, but as far as I can see they don't give any winners for before 1890. Perhaps ot's something where we should canvass opinion amongst project members? JH (talk page) 20:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Grace's list was actually introduced by User:AlbertMW. I had provided only a link to CricInfo. I think we should get a project consensus if possible. I'll write to WT:CRIC. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)