Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Cricket
Articles that need... quality assessment (37) • imporatnce assessment (180) • taskforce assigned (0) • project tags fixed (7) • limited improvement (855) • significant improvement (14,503) • significant expansion (31,819)

WikiProject Cricket
Lead article (talk)
Portal (talk) • Root category (talk)
Open tasks
Project contests
Project newsletter
Project organisation
Project task forces
Cricket templates
Infoboxes
Cricket studies
General topics
Biographies
Cricket teams
Cricket by country
History of cricket
Shortcut

    Merge WikiProjects back into this project

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    The result of this discussion was to merge to regional taskforces. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There are a number of cricket-related WikiProjects that I believe would be best suited as taskforces of this project, which would enable collaboration whilst also understanding that articles on these tournaments need to follow guidelines of WP:CRIC. This was previously mentioned in 2021: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 90#Creation of task forces. Would be good to get a firm consensus on whether or not to implement this. These breakaway WikiProjects have caused numerous problems over the years including:

    • Frequent MOS:COLOR violations on articles and templates
    • Misunderstanding of how article ratings work, by rating categories as "high importance"
    • Violation of the WP:CRIC standard to only add teams to a player's infobox once they make an appearance (Allah Mohammad Ghazanfar being an example who was in IPL and LPL squads but did not play)
    • Creating clutter on article talkpages as if someone plays one match in one of these tournaments, they get added to the WikiProject
    • IPL project created templates for every match (60 per season), which led to a massive template clean up project a few years ago

    All of these WikiProjects are for franchise T20 tournaments that run for 1-3 months a year, and their WikiProjects are dormant for the rest of the year, or are permanently inactive. They are as follows:

    1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League - looks permanently inactive
    2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Lanka Premier League - been inactive for around 2 years, despite only being created in 2021
    3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Premier League - looks to be inactive
    4. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan Super League - looks to be inactive

    In addition, I have separately nominated the recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Premier League (cricket) for deletion, but would be okay with this becoming a task force here too (but no merge is required as there is no history to keep). This post aims to satisfy Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects#Establish consensus for a merger by getting a consensus for or against this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These seem sensible. I had hoped when I revamped the project page, that these would be started by new recruits from r/cricket and other cricket platforms, but I never really found the time. AA (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree per nom. I think task forces are much better than having a single WikiProject. For example, WikiProject Japan has many task forces under a single project which makes it easier to handle.
    KjjjKjjj (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree per nom. task forces are much better than having a single WikiProject. For example, WikiProject Japan has many task forces under a single project which makes it easier to handle.
    Spinin (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like we do have a consensus to merge this WikiProjects back into Cricket WikiProject. Instead of creating taskforces for Full members how about ICC regions... So, it could also cover associate nations as well.

    Additionally,

    @Ankurc.17, AssociateAffiliate, Bs1jac, CarnivalSorts, Clog Wolf, Fade258, Godknowme1, Goodknowme, Hamza Ali Shah, Joseph2302, KjjjKjjj, Kumarpramit, MNWiki845, PEditorS10, Pkr206, and Sush150: What are your thoughts on this...? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me.Godknowme1 (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can definitely get behind with this. My only main concern is that some of the task forces might be inactive most of the time due to little coverage. KjjjKjjj (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both options seem Ok to me. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both options are fine with me, though continents are less likely to be inactive than country task forces (since they cover multiple countries). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems alright to me.  Hamza Ali Shah  16:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cricket Picture of the Year 2024

    @AssociateAffiliate and Joseph2302: I revamped the contests page and also created separate pages for the CPOTY 2024. I scheduled the nomination process for 15 to 31 October and also created this notice to be sent out informing about it. What are your thoughts...? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Sorry for the late reply. Have been on nights and working on getting Robert Poore to FA status. I think the photo competition should run for 12 months, 16 days seems too short. AA (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Will O'Rourke GA reviewed by a sock

    I am afraid, I don't think William O'Rourke (cricketer) article meets WP:GA criteria. It was reviewed by a sock puppeteer (User:Axjuo). Without any images, and not so broad coverage, I'd be even hesitant to rate it as B-class article. No prejudice against the article creator, or Will O'Rourke. Chanaka L (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Chanakal it seems so, but I would suggest taking this to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, where similar discussions have been held before. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how this got through without being spotted. It's wayyyyyyyyyyyy off being a GA. I'd rate it as Start Class. AA (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles for new women's One Day Cup and Blast

    Greetings! I'm here to notify WikiProject Cricket members that I've started the One Day Cup (women's) and T20 Blast (women's) articles. I admittedly know very little about women's domestic county cricket in England and Wales, so I've left them as stubs for now, and hope that more knowledgeable editors here will pick up after me. I was unable to ascertain whether the ECB's new "knock-out cup competition consisting of teams from all three tiers" is a reformat or replacement of the Women's Twenty20 Cup, so I've also left that to more knowledgeable editors here. Thanks! — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AFC Vixen the T20 Blast (women's) and One Day Cup (women's) will be the successors to the Charlotte Edwards Cup and One Day Cup (women's). They appear to be distinct tournaments, so makes sense to have a new article. It also doesn't seem clear to me how the tier system will work, whether it'll be a "T20 Blast Tier 2" or a continuation of existing tournament for Tiers 2 and 3. Probably best to wait until ECB provide more information. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Ireland cricket team

    Ireland cricket team 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. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    History of cricket

    I'm suspicious about the edits that an anonymous editor has just made to the History of cricket, claiming that there is evidence of a match being played as early as the 13th century. Though it provides an apparently pukka citation from a book by Peter Wynne-Thomas, I noticed that the work cited had already provided a citation earlier in the same paragraph, so it could just have been a copy and paste job. The information added to the article is so startling that, if it's true, I find it hard to believe that it's seemingly been unnoticed in the 27 years since the work quoted was published. Does anyone happen to have Wynne-Thomas's book in order to check? JH (talk page) 08:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And now the same poster has removed all the dubious content that they added, so I'm left wondering what it was all about. JH (talk page) 16:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Jhall1. The book refers to the mysterious activity known as "creag", which this article already covers. The poster may have thought they had found something worth including and then realised their mistake. I don't think anything more is needed as creag probably wasn't cricket. The earliest definite mention remains the Guildford Court case in the 1590s. ReturnDuane (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ReturnDuane Thanks. That sounds plausible. Yes, "creag" could be absolutely anything, and there seems no reason to think it's cricket. JH (talk page) 08:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read that creag might be an early spelling of craic, which means games in general. ReturnDuane (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    Projapoti (cricket) entry is problematic

    This should apparently be at Butterfly (cricket). If you look at the sources and references, they use the English word "butterfly", not the Indian word. Could this be the work of somebody trying to push an Indian word not in general usage? I could find nothing in a Google Books search either, and virtually no usages (as opposed to mere mentions) in a Web search. I have found a previous deletion discussion which seems to have leaned toward deletion, but no action was taken: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Projapoti. (By the way, I'm aware that Indian languages don't use the English alphabet A-Z, but if the word isn't in use in English, it should not be the English article title either.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:251E:752E:DCE9:B421 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket&oldid=1256028929"