Am away to warmer climes and will be offsite for several weeks. Expect to be back in February.
This user prefers to be notified by his watchlist. No talkback messages are needed.
I no longer take part in discussions relating to processes, policies or guidelines because they are a waste of time. I am happy to answer polite and interesting questions raised on this page about articles or research, but anything else will be deleted. Thank you.
Messages
Please go to the bottom of the page to place a new message. Thanks.
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:
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! Courtkittie20:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Wisden commentaries are useful, though I probably myself won't be adding them in just yet. I am combing through the series to do summaries and have got up to about 1954 (which only means the first 400 Tests, as opposed to nearly 2,300 played to date). I will probably get bored in the 1960s and start doing the curious representative matches at that time, eg Pakistan v MCC or India v Commonwealth XI. It is certainly something to bear in mind. Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, I know we've clashed on a couple of things lately, but at heart we are both content creators, so hopefully on that we can find a common purpose. I've been working on a draft for the "highest score in cricket" (though I haven't done so much on it lately). It's in one of my many sandboxes: User:Harrias/sandbox2. You are the resident expert for "ye olde cricket", and I wondered if your sources agreed with the early progression list, and whether I had made any silly mistakes due to my lack of experience pre-1880s? Harriastalk10:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ben. I'm always happy to find common ground and I have full respect for the work you do. This piece is a very good idea. If you are starting with the earliest known century, then the instances up to Ward are spot on. There are, however, some earlier "known highest scores", although not all are 100% certain. These are the details we have, as included in List of first-class cricket records:
1744 – John Harris scored 47 for Slindon v. London at the Artillery Ground in the match which has left the oldest known scorecard. This is the earliest match from which individual scores are known. The oldest known team scores date from 1731.[1]
1745 – Richard Newland scored 88 for All-England v. Kent at the Artillery Ground, almost certainly in the second innings of the match, but there is a slight possibility that it was his match total.[2] This is the highest known score recorded prior to the introduction c.1760 of the pitched delivery and the straight bat.
1767 – two Hampshire batsmen (believed to have been Tom Sueter and either George LeerorEdward "Curry" Aburrow) recorded a first-wicket partnership of 192 against Surrey, but there is no record of their individual scores, although at least one of the batsmen probably made a personal century.[3] It is the earliest known century partnership.
1768 – John Small scored "above seven score notches" for Hampshire v Kent, but it is not known if this was his match total or his performance in the second innings. If it was his match total, he could still have made a century in either innings.[4]
1769 – John Minshull (listed as "J. Minchin" on the scorecard) scored the earliest century in all classes of cricket of which there is a definite record: he made 107 for Duke of Dorset's XI v WrothamatSevenoaks Vine (although the location is not certain), but the match is generally considered a minor one.[5]
^McCann, Tim (2004). Sussex Cricket in the Eighteenth Century. Sussex Record Society., pp. 28–29 and fig. 4.
^F. S. Ashley-Cooper, At the Sign of the Wicket: Cricket 1742–1751, Cricket Magazine, 1900.
^H. T. Waghorn, Cricket Scores, Notes, etc. (1730–1773), p. 66.
^H. T. Waghorn, Cricket Scores, Notes, etc. (1730–1773), p. 68.
As it says, the innings by Newland and Small might have been match totals depending on how you interpret the contemporary source wordings but I think Newland did score 88 (this was before pitching began). Harris and, of course, Minshull are definite scores. Sueter, who was a wicket-keeper/batsman, invariably opened for Hampshire so it's a safe bet that he was one of the two in 1767 but Leer and Aburrow are only the likeliest of his partners. Small later scored the earliest known "first-class century" as per your list.
The match in 1806 is what I suppose you should call "borderline first-class" as both teams were notable depending on who was playing in a given match: some people say yes, others say no. The same is true of the 1820 match although there is a greater consensus for, given that a county team was involved. The two Hampshire matches are universally recognised as first-class.
That's about it, really. Details are sparse and we can only use what is there. If you would like me to check any of the old sources for anything, always glad to help. Good luck. Jack | talk page12:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers
Cheers for the heads up. It's sad that clarifying a guideline by quoting another has become unacceptable practice and renders each one illogical. In any kind of logical world, that would negate both... Bobo.06:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rest well mate
However much of a break you wish to take from the site, I hope you rest well. Recent events have made me question why any single person such as myself, you, or AA, even wishes to contribute to the site any more. People would soon moan when activity was suspiciously low... Bobo.08:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We might as well escape while we still remember the good times before people forgot what the point was of Wikipedia! ;) One of those camouflage suits is in order.
Hello. In respect of the various discussions at WT:CRIC and AfD, I dropped a note at the WP:Sri Lanka talk page to see if any of the participants there are in a position to help with some of the more obscure cricketers who are being threatened or have access to sources in Sinhalese. I don't hold out a lot of hope, since the project there seems to be in decline. But we will see. On another point, I don't see, in WP:CRIN or in the First-class cricket article, a clear definition of when domestic matches (at the highest level etc etc) in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe were considered to have been first-class – we single out England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and West Indies in WP:CRIN, and I assume that India includes Pakistan for the pre-1947 period (maybe that applies to Bangladesh too) and therefore by extension from 1947 onwards too. Did domestic cricket in Sri Lanka get accorded first-class status in the 1980s when Sri Lanka was elevated by the ICC to Test status? Some matches in Sri Lanka were patently first-class well before that, but they mostly seemed to involve touring teams on their way to and from Australia, or matches appended to tours of India. I think a problem is that, with the apparent transience of some of the Sri Lankan clubs in their premier division – promoted one season, relegated the next – the status of some matches isn't immediately clear. What do you think? Johnlp (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John. CRIN is talking about "domestic cricket played before the first-class definition: this applies only to matches in Great Britain and Ireland, Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies" which means before the ICC ruling in 1947. After 1947, each ICC full member has decided which domestic matches are first-class and Sri Lanka began in 1988 when they upgraded their national championship. International matches like Ceylon v India in 1945 are non-domestic and so the ruling doesn't apply to them. Matches before 1947 in what became Pakistan and Bangladesh are included in India, as you say. I can expand CRIN and the FC article if you like. The FC article could perhaps use a list of early first-class matches per country for each of the post-1947 Test nations. Jack | talk page11:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think it might help CRIN to have some precise dates for Sri Lanka etc inserted after which individual cricketers and domestic teams can be presumed notable and therefore worthy of an article. Johnlp (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jack. I stumbled across Richmond Cricket Club today and I noticed some of the changes you made back in March. My initial reaction was that there should be a dab page Richmond Cricket Club and that the article on the 18th century club should be renamed. I was going to just be bold but luckily I noticed Talk:Richmond Cricket Club, Surrey before I went through with anything and, having seen that it's been discussed a bit in the past, figured it was better to bring it here rather than go full steam ahead. So, what was your thoughts on the primary topic? My gut reaction was that although the 18th c. club might be the most notable it is probably not more notable than the two modern clubs combined, both of which seem to play at a reasonable level (I could be biased though because my initial thought when hearing the term will always be the Melbourne grade club). Then, if you agree about having a dab page, what should the historical club article be renamed to? I'm not sure "Richmond Cricket Club, Surrey" because it might be ambiguous with the modern club which seems to have been associated with Surrey for a large chunk of its existence -- or so it seems to me but then again I might be wrong because English counties have always confused me. On a similar note, "Richmond Cricket Club (1862)" may not be the best name for the modern club but I'm not sure of a better one off the top of my head -- maybe some reference to the league they play in?
I notice at the top of your talk page it says you're on a bit of a break (I'm just coming back from a long one myself) so only respond to this when you have a chance, obviously it's not urgent. Also pinging Spike 'em as they were involved in the previous discussion. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From memory (and checking through the current versions / talk): There was the Richmond Cricket Club, Surrey article, which had details of both the historic club and the modern one. Jack helped split out the two parts. At some point before, the grade team was renamed to Monash Tigers and Richmond Cricket Club left as a redirect. I think I've fixed any links to RCC that should go to MT for Australian players.
To confirm one major point: Richmond is now part of London, but historically was part of Surrey and as such Richmond should probably play in the Surrey Championship but they made the choice to play in the Middlesex County Cricket League (which makes it the furthest journey for most teams they play!)
As to naming, I'd be inclined to have a DAB to split them out. I see Monash Tigers has had the most page views this month than the 2 English teams combined, but not sure how many of them would have come from the About link, so wouldn't necessarily justify taking the name back. Spike 'em (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think any disambiguation / article titles should reference the age / level at which the team plays.
As an attempt at explanation for Jenks24, Middlesex no longer exists as a county: 90% was subsumed into London at various times in the past, so all the teams in the Middlesex League (other than Richmond) are now in North / West London. Much of southwest London used to be in Surrey, so some of the teams in the Surrey League are now in London. Northeast London has teams in Essex League and southeast in Kent League for similar reasons. All of Surrey, Middlesex and Kent play games within the borders of London.
Hello, Jenks and Spike. Yes, I think you are right that there should be a DAB for Richmond and Sunbury. The 18th century clubs were first-class so they have a primary topic claim but I think clarity is the more important factor here. Apart from Mitcham and some club called Marylebone, we don't know the foundation dates of any 18th century clubs so I would use Richmond Cricket Club (18th century), Sunbury Cricket Club (18th century), etc. Exceptions to this, however, assuming there are modern equivalents must be London, Hambledon, Slindon, Dartford, Chertsey and perhaps one or two more because they are primary for their historical importance. Thanks. Jack | talk page10:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have noticed, I've gone ahead with the Richmond moves. Everything seems in order, although I'm waiting for Special:WhatLinksHere/Richmond Cricket Club to clear of all the template transclusions to make sure there aren't any links going to the dab. I've also replied on my talk page re the AfD/CRIN stuff, not sure I was much help though... I'll have a chat to Rhadow if the AfD nominations keep coming and he keeps doing things like citing WP:BLP1E when that clearly states NSPORTS is not subject to it. Or saying CI/CA isn't independent. If I can get motivated that is, that sort of stuff has never been something I'm particularly good at or enjoy doing. If we want anything seriously done though it will probably be into the AN/ANI cesspool. The joys of Wikipedia... Jenks24 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jenks. As it happens, I've issued a warning to Rhadow about BLP1E and NSPORTS. He is someone with an agenda and unfortunately has about three supporters. I can certainly see ANI on the horizon if these people don't stop trying to misrepresent guidelines. All the best. Jack | talk page21:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see this eighteenth-century cricketer is on your to-do list. I recently did a stub for George Dupuis (cricketer, born 1835) who played eight times for Cambridge University and the Gentlemen of England in the 1850s. Second GD is the son of a George John Dupuis, vice-provost of Eton, who is in turn the son of a Rev George Dupuis, rector of Wendlebury near Bicester. Is the Rev George your George Dupuis, and therefore my GD's grandfather? There seems to be an Etonian connection, and of course the name's the same. But I can't see anything that positively makes the connection. Perhaps Haygarth or some such has a mention of a later George Dupuis? Cheers. Johnlp (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John. I'd say the percentage is very high, especially as the older man was a reverend, but there's no personal history in any of the sources. All I can see is that he played in those matches and is mentioned as a reverend in one of the team lists. I think you must be right but I'm afraid it's without absolute confirmation.
I have, however, found a mention of G. R. Dupuis in Altham's history. On page 114, Altham is talking about how difficult it could be for the two university clubs to field their best teams in the 19th century. He says: "Some of the University authorities were far from recognising the importance of the occasion and G. R. Dupuis recalls how he was refused leave by the Dean of King's to play in a University match on the score (sic) that the proper place for a scholar of King's on a Saturday afternoon was in chapel". The citation for that is <ref>{{cite book |last=Altham |first=H. S. |authorlink=Harry Altham |title=A History of Cricket, Volume 1 (to 1914) |year=1962 |page=114 |publisher=George Allen & Unwin |location=London}}</ref>
Sorry, then, that I can't help with your actual question but I hope the extra bit is useful . Let me know if you think I could be of further help. All the best. Jack | talk page14:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall that you have some but not all Wisdens from this period... so if you need a reference or two at any stage on this one, just shout. I'm intermittently around at present, but will get to it. Cheers. Johnlp (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, John, no, I don't have any pre-war Wisden. My earliest is 1948. I would therefore be very happy for any help you can give me with this "mini-project". Thank you for the kind offer. All the best. Jack | talk page10:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Tell me where you need a citation and I'll try to find one. I'll be away from my Wisdens for 48 hours after tonight, but back at the weekend. KR. Johnlp (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John. I've not made as much progress with this as I would have liked to because of the real world (too busy of late) and I'll be offsite soon for several weeks so, if you would like to take over, you're more than welcome. I've got a basic structure in place so it's expansion that's needed. I would think an additional section will be added for off-field events. All the best. Jack | talk page22:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to promise... but I'll see if I can nudge it along a little. But I imagine there will be plenty for you to do when you return. I think an off-field section would be useful to take into account the changing demographics of first-class cricket in this period (some county clubs all but fully professional, others still operating like some Edwardian country-house party) and the economics (Leicestershire, Somerset and Hampshire and probably a couple of others hovered just above penury for much of this period). Johnlp (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I was meaning. I think the game reached a turning point at this time from which it moved forward after WWII. The clubs where professionalism had taken hold were essentially northern but there were some southern captains like Frank Mann (and later Stuart Surridge, of course) who had a professional approach which raised standards at clubs with an otherwise amateur outlook. I've got Charles Williams' book about the end of amateurism and he talks a great deal about county finances. He says that, between the wars, common practice at certain clubs was based on the maxim that "it was always cheaper to play amateurs than to keep professionals on their books" (page 99). Jack | talk page14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm enjoying reading this as it develops. As I'm sure you're already well aware, there is a lot of stuff that's going to need supporting citations once the article reaches a finished state if it's not to be challenged, even though I personally don't disagree with any of it. That's most noticeable with the bit on Bodyline, but also where you say things like a county captain being "charismatic" and Rhodes and Robinson being arch-professionals. JH (talk page) 10:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree. Some of the adjectives should be taken out but for now I've just banged in the basic information and ignored the site guidelines. As it happens, you've written to me just as I've finished the initial development and I've decided to call it a day as we have a lot of preparation to do before we depart for warmer climes. My wife's sister and her husband are moving in while we're away and we need to make the place presentable before they arrive. So, anyway, I'm going to shut all this down now and if you would like to help the inter-war article along, that will be great. All the best to you, John. Jack | talk page10:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewing
Hello, BlackJack.
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)08:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See you soon
See you soon, my friend. I think we all need the rest, and I know for certain I'm not even going to venture into cricket-related article mainspace again. This site has become a parody of itself and 13 years of work is going steadily down the drain through the fault of people who care none for the site. I still visit the site of course but there is no point contributing to a broken project. Bobo.11:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, BlackJack. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey BlackJack, I am not certain, but by the looks of their recent activity, I think you drove Blue Square Things into retirement with this comment. By the looks of it, you two obviously have had some heated history; whoever was actually "right" is not why I am here. I hope me saying this does not create animosity between us but I think an experienced editor like you knows better than to insult another person and, most likely, be the catalyst for their departure.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Grace. Sorry for not replying sooner but I'm a long way from home and not much time to spare.
Never my intention to get into arguments but it was the last straw where that user was concerned. I could go into detail but breach of WP:OR is as serious as it gets; he had overwritten factual sourced material with it too. He has created problems for other users too. This is not a rookie or newbie who has misunderstood things and needs a helping hand; it is someone who is invariably disruptive either by design or through incompetence.
Anyway, nice to meet you as I'm old enough to remember Jefferson Airplane in their prime. Your namesake most certainly is unforgettable. All the best. Jack | talk page06:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
. I can very easily get bored and go off looking for something else. The summaries are good, though. All the best. Jack | talk page 10:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
