Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
Deletion
alerts
The NetsAssessmentThe
Library
ContestsAwardsMembers


    Denonyms vs nations[edit]

    Similar to the Mashfi23's query about adding "men's" to certain article titles, I have another thing that I would like to be considered. Why do we use denonyms for men's bilateral tours, but the nation for women's tours. e.g., England women's cricket team in India in 2023–24 and English cricket team in India in 2023–24. As well as the potential to add "men's" to the title, I feel we should be consistent and start saying "England (men's?) cricket team in VENUE in YEAR".

    It is of course refering to THE England/Australia/India etc (men's) national team rather than AN English/Australian/Indian team. Plus we don't use the denonym for certain teams as it is (e.g., New Zealand) Bs1jac (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The usage of demonyms is arguable, we use these demonyms only in the case of men's tours and we use the other way you mentioned for women's tours. I think there should be uniformity among these type of articles, it should be either demonyms across both or neither. Cric editor (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we use only the nation name when used with the gender term (women's), we can very well look to use the term for men too and stop using demonyms in those titles to go along with Bs1jac's preference. মাশ্‌ফী※Mashfi (ETP) 07:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should be consistent with country or denonyms (although New Zealand is mostly used as a denonym on Wiki anyway), my personal preference would be the country so England cricket team in India in 2023–24. I'm sure I raised this issue years ago, and we didn't do anything about it. But we should treat this issue separately to the men's or no men's in names above, otherwise we'll end up conflating the 2, and probably nothing will get consensus. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with all that. Separate issues. So to clarify, I too feel that England cricket team in India in 2023–24 would be my preferred title for such articles. Bs1jac (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mashfi23, User talk:Joseph2302. Bringing this up again as it seems that Citation bot has done the opposite and changed a few women's tours to use the denonym. Can't see any discussion on this and I thought we were leaning towards changing mean's tours to use the nation, rather that women's tours to use the denonym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs1jac (talkcontribs) 21:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did someone direct the bot to do it? I see that you've changed some of the titles back, thanks for that– we better decide something soon though মাশ্‌ফী※Mashfi (ETP) 08:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    FLC[edit]

    I have nominated Ireland women's cricket team record by opponent for featured list. I think, it is one of the topics of interest of Cricket Project. Please join the discussion on whether this article should be promoted or not. Thanks. RoboCric Let's chat 16:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see my comments :) AA (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your participation AA RoboCric Let's chat 11:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD[edit]

    Hi. Even after 2 relists, this AFD is lacking participation. While I am confident that it deserves to be deleted, but it can't be closed as soft deletion is ineligible now. So, I invite the editors of this project to join the discussion. Thanks. RoboCric Let's chat 14:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You're WP:canvassing for delete votes. In future you should ask for participation but leave out the bit about you being confident its a delete. Desertarun (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't want to canvass, it is a proper notice. I'm sorry but I had no intention for canvassing. Just, I wanted to explain that soft deletion was not eligible even though there have been one participant in the AFD. So, I wanted to seek attention of editors to participate in the discussion. I'm happy to remove that part and rely on the neutrality. Thanks. RoboCric Let's chat 15:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of us have inadvertently canvassed at some point. In such a low participation discussion like this nobody will much care, but in a more animated debate people will get annoyed for sure. Desertarun (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Jos Buttler[edit]

    Jos Buttler has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have substantially expanded this article and wouldn't mind getting it to FA, particularly as he is a Test cricketer. If anyone would be kind enough to review it and make suggestions, it would be much appreciated. Or, if anyone has any further sources I have overlooked which might add to it, that would also be appreciated :) AA (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've only had time to take my most cursory look at it. It looks good, but I did find one typo to fix. JH (talk page) 17:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers! Thanks for fixing the typo!!! I'd like to find out a bit more about his dispute with Ranji ideally, only have so far that it stemmed from a bunch of grapes! AA (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is interesting as your source, Simon Sweetman, says: "Wynyard was featured in a caricature in Vanity Fair in 1898, with the caption to his caricature alluding to his reputed short and sometimes violent temper, whilst also mentioning his dispute with Ranjitsinhji, which had begun when Ranjitsinhji helped himself to some of Wynyard's grapes". In Simon Wilde's Ranji (1999), page 86, he writes: "It is revealing that that a profile of him (Ranji) in Vanity Fair in August 1897 referred to him having a 'violent temper' and to a well-publicised argument he had had recently with Teddy Wynyard, the Hampshire captain, after helping himself to some of Wynyard's grapes".
    I would be inclined to accept the Wilde version here, especially as he is exact about the month of the issue. Wilde's context is the financial pressure on Ranji in 1897 when he was close to bankruptcy, and he goes on to say how Ranji was noted for his impatience — he had a reputation "for not suffering fools gladly".
    Wilde mentions Wynyard again on page 249 in a list of Ranji's highest partnerships. Ranji and Wynyard opened the innings for MCC v CUCC at Lord's in 1904, and put on 237 in 140 minutes. Batagur baska (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I have found a piece in Harry Altham's history which may be useful. Writing about Hampshire teams during 1900–1914, Altham on page 268 says: "In R. M. Poore and E. G. Wynyard, when service duties allowed them to play, (Hampshire) had two batsmen of unmistakable stature; Wynyard, a versatile athlete who had played in the Old Carthusian side that won the FA Cup in 1886, was a resolute and adventurous stroke-player good enough to be chosen for England in the Oval Test of 1896". I'll see if I can spot more references when I have time, but I'm afraid my books are somewhat scattered right now! Batagur baska (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox help[edit]

    Wondering if anyone might know how to get both the rugby union and cricket infoboxes to be embedded in the infobox for George Hamilton D'Oyly Lyon. I have all the info already in there, just no clue why it won't embed them :( AA (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, AA. I saw this and I have tried to help. The difficulty is the military infobox only allowing a single use of the module parameter (module1, module2, etc. are invalid). I have nested rugby inside cricket and cricket inside military. There is one remaining anomaly in that "cricket information" isn't highlighted, so it looks as if some enhancements are needed in the military to improve its handling of modules. Could you please check that the information in the whole panel is still okay? Thanks. Batagur baska (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers, it's a very annoying infobox the MILHIST one, for such an efficient and excellent Wikiproject! It all looks okay to me :) AA (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]