Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 95

Archive 90←Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95

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)

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)

Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)
Looks good to me.Godknowme1 (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
Both options seem Ok to me. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
Seems alright to me.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 16:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
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.

This merge has been managed incorrectly so far, wiping out useful pages with no links to their history, and creating pages with unattributed content. Please see this discussion for a few details. There are probably more pages that have been processed incorrectly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I have recovered all the discussions and put them in the archives of Asia tf. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

CricketArchive

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)

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)
Thanks @Spike 'em! Should we switch over the links to cricinfo? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
Just in case if someone is thinking about switching,
  • List scorecard links to cricketarchive.com - thousands of them.
  • List scorecard links to cricketarchive.co.uk - 587 of them.
Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
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)

LPL & BPL categories

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Source review request

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)

Syed Mohammad Hadi

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)

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)
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_95