::::::What I also find interesting is that several of these deleted articles still have, or in some cases already ''did'' have before I wrote them, articles of their own on other language Wikipedias. I wonder if other language Wikipedia projects have different article inclusion guidelines or anything as nonsense and flimsy as GNG to fall back on. Surely in the light of all this rule-buggery, the only relevant ''policy'' (considering that GNG is as much a guideline as CRIN or any other) is NPOV... [[User:Bobo192|Bobo]][[User talk:Bobo192|.]] 11:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::What I also find interesting is that several of these deleted articles still have, or in some cases already ''did'' have before I wrote them, articles of their own on other language Wikipedias. I wonder if other language Wikipedia projects have different article inclusion guidelines or anything as nonsense and flimsy as GNG to fall back on. Surely in the light of all this rule-buggery, the only relevant ''policy'' (considering that GNG is as much a guideline as CRIN or any other) is NPOV... [[User:Bobo192|Bobo]][[User talk:Bobo192|.]] 11:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::: {{u|Bobo192}} For me, sadly all are going to have similar fate. All work written by you is not yours or mine but it is in ''public domain''. With time policy change so the criteria. You and I can't defend them forever so I will advise leave them as they are. Whatever people want to do will do without looking at CI or CA. You had done your job well thats it. [[User:Störm|<span style="color: #1B1811;">'''Störm'''</span>]] [[User talk:Störm|<span style="color: #1B1811;">'''(talk)'''</span>]] 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::: {{u|Bobo192}} For me, sadly all are going to have similar fate. All work written by you is not yours or mine but it is in ''public domain''. With time policy change so the criteria. You and I can't defend them forever so I will advise leave them as they are. Whatever people want to do will do without looking at CI or CA. You had done your job well thats it. [[User:Störm|<span style="color: #1B1811;">'''Störm'''</span>]] [[User talk:Störm|<span style="color: #1B1811;">'''(talk)'''</span>]] 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}
Reading those two multi-article AfDs, it appears that [[WP:V]] is being brought in and I'm afraid many of our articles have no defence against that. Johnlp is right that all articles MUST provide inline citations. External links are the same as "additional reading" and don't qualify, as I've pointed out in the past. Anyway, I'm on holiday and I'm pissed off with this site so I'm away again. <b>[[User:BlackJack|Jack]] | <sup><i>[[User talk:BlackJack|talk page]]</i></sup></b> 01:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This page is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Following on from the above discussion, I'd like to invite more editors to look at the issue of biography articles of cricketers containing sections for achievements and awards. This was the example given in that discussion. Does this violate WP:NOTSTATS? Should these sections be included in articles? Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me13:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a bit on the above. The project appears to have a consensus against adding these to biographies, but there are only a handful of participants in the discussion. Ideally, I'd like some opinions from people not attached to the project, for a neutral view. Here's another example from a cricketer who made a Test century today. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me12:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think issues are that much serious that we should mass remove them. They all need decent prose and suddenly they will start making sense. It is true that they are WP:NOTSTATS but if we explain them then they will not. We have FLs on cricketers achievements but all have good prose. If they were lists full of stats then I would support but not here. @Gihan Jayaweera: so they can participate and can acknowledge that whenever they will add these stats then they will explain them. Thanks. Störm(talk)13:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I have to say is, the particular awards are internationally accepted achievements to rate their importance in the cricket world. So, citing them is a useful note to the article of the player and I don't think it is useless. Some players like Tendulkar, Jayasuriya, Ponting, Gilchrist, and Dravid, they have separated achievement articles. We all know they are legends in the game. To add that caliber, adding their achievements and awards is important.
@Gihan Jayaweera: We acknowledge that these achievements are recognized, but what we're saying is WP:NOTSTATS is a policy, so if you're going to be adding these to every article you must include prose to give them context. The difference with featured lists like List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar is that they have a lot of prose to give context and further information about the achievements, which almost none of the articles with tables at the bottom have. While I'm not opposed to including these achievements in the articles, I think it's better done within the body of the articles or with prose explaining why it's important that they be included and adding more context to explain how significant their achievements are. As it stands, indiscriminantly adding them for every player without context, you'd assume a player like William Porterfield was a better cricketer than Marcus North because he has more international centuries and man-of-the-match performances. Even though almost all of Porterfield had the advantage of less competitive innational selection (being Northern Irish rather than Australian) and his achievements were almost all against other associate nations (weaker opposition than the Test playing nations Australia usually plays), neither article has any prose to give context and explain the significance of their achievements so you can actually understand where they stand. Do you understand that it is Wikipedia policy that "articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." TripleRoryFan (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MoM awards are arguably WP:TRIVIA and definitely, per NOTSTATS, indiscriminate information at least and so in breach of WP:IINFO. I have no problem with them being mentioned in the narrative if the player's performance in a given match was especially outstanding but, really, they are of no benefit the reader and they should not form a prominent part of the article. I entirely agree with the points made by TripleRoryFan above. Jack | talk page11:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal Agree that the MotM awards are trivia. They add no real value to the article and any outstanding performance(s) can be mentioned as prose in the body of the article. The same with the over-bloating of adding table after table to show a century in one format, a five-wicket haul in another, some other milestone in yet another table. Here's a pretty bad example of adding in tables for the sake of adding them in. And they fast become full of over-specific esoteric wording that doesn't help the reader. LugnutsFire Walk with Me13:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose I think that information doesn't violate NOTSTATS if it can be conveyed in a way that supplements the core prose of the article, as a secondary focus. That's the big question though, can it consistently be conveyed that way? In some cases it might work, in others it wouldn't. Ultimately, I think a case-by-case basis is the best approach here. South Nashua (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. I agree with much of what South Nashua has written immediately above, but fall off the fence in the opposite direction. I think there may be occasions when the notability of this kind of information justifies its display in this way, but in a lot of those cases – record holders, serially successful players, etc etc – we might more usefully look at spin-out articles, often in the form of lists. Essentially, however, WP should remain as a narrative encyclopedia and far too many of these sections have very few entries or have not been updated. There are even sections entitled "Test match centuries by..." which contain only one century, and that's just silly. I'd also plead for some restraint on colour schemes: South Nashua is right that these things, if they exist, should be a "secondary focus", and screaming fluorescent colours do nobody's eyeballs any favours. Johnlp (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Building on what I said and what John said here, with these "marginal" statistics, such as a player with just one century, placing that statistic in the article's infobox would be more than fine. No need to place it in the article's mainspace unless it's significant. South Nashua (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the consensus here? I'm not used to how these sorts of things work but nobody has commented here for over a week now and I'm not sure how to proceed with player articles that have the stats in them. TripleRoryFan (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral.I am not against the man of the match and man of the series awards to be posted in each and every cricket biographies as I think according to my point of view those navigation boxes add beauty to the articles as it is our tradition that we have been doing in Cricket related biographies. But on the same time, the man of the match award boxes would cover the 3/4th or 2/3rd of an entire biography meaning that the particular cricketer's achievements in international cricket can be identified through the number of man of the match and many of the series awards earned by that player. There are some articles which have been devoted to the Man of the match awards earned by some of the greatest cricketers in the international cricket separately for example List of ODI awards for Sachin Tendulkar who has earned about 63 Player of the match awards in ODIs, the most by a cricketer in a single format. If the conclusion of this debate is delete so the above article should also be deleted. I at least propose to go with Player of the Series award rather than Player of the Match according to the convenience. Thank you Abishe (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It depends - if there's a table then there needs to be prose to put the table in context. If the contents of the table can be better summarised in the prose then there's no need for the table, but that's not always possible. So, some tables may be appropriate in some cases, although only, I would suggest, with a solid prose introduction of some kind.
If there are going to be tables of stats and awards then I would prefer that they were in an appropriate place in the article. Too often I'm finding sections added to the end of articles, which seems to be leading to too many sections in articles. If there were a statistical summary section that would be more helpful than just a set of different sections thrown on an article.
I'm fairly certain that that's a direct copy (and a v recent one btw) of the English language wikipedia page. Formatting and all. There's one extra source in the En language one - the one that references something in the infobox. It's a direct copy so that's why the tables have been copied across. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Team info in infoboxes
I don't have any great expertise here (and this might have been covered before but I searched and couldn't find anything relevant) but I'd like to request that we consider having two sections for teams in a player's infobox. I think we should have one for first-class/List A teams, and one for T20 teams. Kevin Pietersen's article is perhaps the worst culprit of what a cluttered infobox can look like at the moment. Under my proposal, he should have one section saying he was at Natal 99-00, Notts 01-04, Hampshire 05-10 and Surrey 10-15, and any other county/state/province side he played serious FC or LA cricket for. He should then have a different section beneath that for the million T20 sides he has played for. Kieron Pollard is another. There is a precedent in infoboxes doing this - rugby players who play for both a state and Super Rugby team have it displayed in this way, and I think that would greatly de-clutter and clarify the situation. Thank you. JamKaftan (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wholeheartedly agree. Especially makes sense since nowadays the domestic Twenty20 sides are (in most places) separate from the FC and LA sides nowadays. Might also be worth considering splitting Twenty20 clubs up further by the country for some players since a lot of them will simultaneously have teams in the IPL, BBL, CPL, County Cricket, etc. and including them all in one group could be confusing for readers since that doesn't happen in most other sports. TripleRoryFan (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know how template stuff works but here's an example I made of what it could look like (I've dropped the squad numbers from the infobox in this because they take up a lot of space and I think they should be removed altogether since they don't really have any significance in cricket and don't even exist in first-class teams). I've divided it up further by country (you could do by tournament but there've been three different English tournaments and I'm not sure which ones he did/didn't play in). TripleRoryFan (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three English ones already! I've lost track of 'em. I think your layout is a significant improvement and I vote we adopt yours. Well done. Jack | talk page05:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I'd prefer going a bit further and having it hideable (e.g. "[show]" and "[hide]") with the default being set at hide for T20 teams (and possibly all domestic teams). Especially for players like this the bloat is too much. Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, was going to suggest the same on the collapsiblity. I would consider there to be a minor error on the Pietersen info, which in itself is unimportant at the moment but raises a questions for me : how should we list players who have recently (or ever) only played T20s for what would be considered their "main" team. For franchise tournaments where there is no link to a 1st class team it is not an issue, but in English domestic cricket (and SA / NZ?) the T20 teams are one and the same as the 1st class teams. I don't think there will be many cases where a domestic player will play a significant number of T20s and never play a List A or 1st class, but it is possible and in 2017 Pietersen was a T20 only player for Surrey. For single country domestic players, should we add the same team in both the existing club section and the new T20 section or just use the T20 for players who play in more than one country? Spike 'em (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on the context. If it's a player who specifically only plays in Twenty20s for a season it should probably only be included in the Twenty20 section, but if they happen to miss all first-class and list A matches due to injury or poor form but otherwise would have been in the team I think it can be included in the other domestic team info section, especially if they play list A and first-class matches in the season before/season after. TripleRoryFan (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion from December 2015 is probably worth revisiting as it contains some similar ideas.
Any changes obviously need to ensure that there is no impact on existing info box use. The issue is primarily one that impacts a fairly small number of players who play in franchise T20 leagues. Perhaps the type of league needs to be the division rather than simply by type? So a player who plays for an English county side probably doesn't need that in a new section, but one who has played on the franchise circuit might well benefit from a separate section. I imagine the number of players this applies to will increase, but primarily we're looking at those such as Gayle, McCullum etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on that discussion seems to be to implement the changes Harrias suggested but it doesn't seem to have happened. I think it's a great idea to reduce the amount of information in the infobox and make them collapsible, otherwise you end up with players whose infoboxes are about as long as the actual text of the article itself. Any idea why it didn't get done?
I think the issue with separating domestic and T20 doesn't just give clarity for people who play in a number of franchise leagues, but also domestic players. Like an Australian domestic player with a long career might have played for a couple of states and several BBL teams, so clearly differentiating which teams are which could be helpful (e.g. in Adam Zampa, who has played for two states and three BBL teams). TripleRoryFan (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given any change to use a new template will require editing players we can deal with players on a case-by-case basis. Aus domestic players will need separate sections as the Big Bash teams are separate entities from the state teams. English domestic players I'd keep as is (unless they also play franchise cricket), except the odd instance like KP. We'd need some guideline on what to do with overseas players in English cricket. Some come over for the whole year and play all forms of the game, whilst others just play the T20 competition. For the latter, I'd put the info in the T20 section, but for the former should we just list them in the Domestic teams, or both Domestic and T20? I've resurrected the test template, and am adding @Harrias:'s version for KP. I've been trying to figure out how to do the collapsing and now I've seen his work, I'll attempt to merge the two. Spike 'em (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help with this. Worth bearing in mind what our MOS says on infoboxes: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." In my opinion, Infobox cricketer has become a bloated mess, and would seriously benefit from a significant trim and overhaul. Ideally, we want a solution that involves as little changing of current articles as possible, and as much done in the code of the infobox as possible. This was part of what derailed my proposed changes before, as it would have involved editing pretty much every cricketer's article to get it to work properly. Harriastalk10:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for completeness, I've changed the KP details in the 2nd infobox to appear as it would if we adopted Harrias's version. Will try to work on a version which separates T20 franchises if I get a moment. Spike 'em (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get a look at what a non-international player might look like? And someone who played ages ago - the sort of chap who would only have FC apps and might have only played for one team? They presumably make up a significant proportion of the info boxes we have and it might be nice to see how this sort of thing affects them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is one of the main things I'm testing at the moment. I've picked another Surrey player at the start of his career and testing the various infobox formats at User:Spike 'em/sandbox/OP. If you had the name of an olden-days player in mind I'll add them too.Spike 'em (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My 2p. The version that lists all the teams is horridly bloated and needs the show/hide idea. The second version is better, but hides his overall stats, which I think should always be visible. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!12:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see both sides of that one - no real preference. What I would quite like to be able to see is their FC debut perhaps. Or their FC span anyway - rather like Harrias' version has with the Test span etc... To me that's quite interesting and should probably be visible by default. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one way of reducing bloat would be to remove the names of the countries the teams play in. Just go with the chronology. Many of the team names are fairly self-explanatory and for any that aren't, people can click through easily enough. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!12:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The idea with having the country names isn't to give more information but to separate out Twenty20 franchises by country so that they make more sense at a glance than having four different teams with overlapping spans. TripleRoryFan (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much use for the height field. KP is 6ft 4. So what? And factor in the edit-warring and anon IP unsourced additions I see in this one field alone makes it feel that it's more trouble that it's worth. The relations though is def. worth keeping, but only if the relations are notable in their own right. LugnutsFire Walk with Me09:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd get rid of the height, nicknames, even full name – that is always given on the first line of the article, so why repeat it in the infobox? Harriastalk07:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me - nicknames are particularly prone to munchkinism. There needs to be a field below the title for name I imagine, but otherwise that's fine. Some sort of non-international playing span that's visible always would be my only real want I suppose.
If we're looking at radical changes I think it might be a good idea to completely do away with the player's domestic clubs in the infobox and instead add a table to players' articles similar to the ones that show career stats for football (soccer) players. Really the only things that need to always be visible in a player's infobox are their name, their birth date, their country, their international career span, batting handedness, bowling style and whether they're a batter/bowler/all-rounder/wicket-keeper. Career stats I feel shouldn't be automatically visible, because right now there are a lot of stub articles where the infobox is longer than the actual text in the article because the career stats are shown by default. TripleRoryFan (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean most cricketers don't even have international career; also even for international players I feel at least the most important sides should be mentioned, like the domestic first class team played for. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with including first-class teams, but when it comes to Twenty20 teams there's just too many of them, especially if the player plays in multiple Twenty20 leagues, to include all of them in the infobox by default. TripleRoryFan (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
Some advice please Rod ,Ianblair23 : As part of this, I've editted Francis Appleyard and changed his place of birth from one DAB to another. All I can find on the internet is that he was born in Clifton, Yorkshire of which there are many! Previously his place of birth was Clifton, South Yorkshire, which is just a redirect to the main Clifton DAB. There are (at least) 2 Cliftons in South Yorkshire! Is it ok to leave it pointing to the more specific DAB, or is it better to remove the link altogether? Spike 'em (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is useful if we also have a collapsible scorebox for cricket in same way as how it is present for football. This will be very useful, especially in a very big tournaments. I think this can make pages look better instead of using current Limited overs matches template(Or someone can just make that collapsible). Did anyone try to do that or is there any discussion on this anytime? Thanks. Sagavaj (talk) 2:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
There's a summary box as well that can be used - but rarely is. In many cases it seems that "articles" about tournaments are little more than an intro paragraph, a bunch of tables and then several rolling lengths of scores. It would be useful to reduce the length of scrolling at least. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g. several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats). You could count that information as being supplementary; but maybe not, if the description of the tournament is indeed like that hiding it won't fix the problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsible shouldn't conceal main summary of articles but I think that individual contributions come as secondary and team scores as main content. @Harrias that is correct but why don't we use it more often? Sagavaj (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the collapsible templates don't hide anything that is crucial for the article. In almost every case the information in them is supplementary - so MOS:COLLAPSE is met by using them. If someone does score a 300 or take 7/9 or similar then I'd hope that that would be mentioned in the main article - most of the time though it's someone with best bowling of 2/43 and a high score of 32. Not exactly worth a drama.
I think you can do both though. If you take the view that the highest scores etc... are supplemental then the MOS is adhered to. I wouldn't do that for final matches of a competition, but I do think it's utterly reasonable, as a compromise, to suggest that we should be aiming to minimise the amount of scrolling that a user has to do to get from the top of the first fixture to the bottom of the final one.
To be honest, I think it's also possible to take a view that there shouldn't be very long lists of scores presented as score templates. These generally aren't necessary and might be better presented via an external link. I'd much rather see a prose summary than a whole pile of scores - although I understand why that's not done. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think the choices made in all those articles are entirely reasonable - and I agree totally that you can have both statistical information and prose. I understand why prose isn't being added to most articles in the sort of way it is in those articles though.
I suppose that my issue is with articles such as 2013 Indian Premier League which is a really interesting article to consider (I don't think anyone who's contributing to this discussion has edited it in a major way by the way). There's actually some pretty decent prose and then you get to the map. And then... I just don't see why the whole section of scores is necessarily valuable enough to need to see all the detail - I counted 14.5 screens worth of scrolling, albeit on a laptop. The WSL one, otoh, needed 1.5 scrolls. 1.5 is fine. It's appropriate. 14.5?!
Is there are one line template at all? Literally one line per match, to replace the need to wrangle with table syntax (which I appreciate many people find difficult) as in the Somerset article? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In articles like 2013 Indian Premier League which was mentioned above, it will help a lot if we can use collapsible boxes or other idea is to move entire scores to a new wiki page and just keep Group Stage summary table that's already present in the page? I don't think that many people will specifically look into each and every score. We can just keep knockouts (play-off stage) I guess. Just a thought. Sagavaj (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's an argument that this would be better served by an external link. Or possibly by completely collapsing the section other than the knock out games using Template:Collapse. I imagine that there would be objections from people that want to see lots and lots and lots of match scores and no prose in articles though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Missing LGBT related cricket articles and LGBT cricket biographies
I have noticed that there is only one LGBT related cricket biography relating to a former Bermudian cricketer Linda Mienzer. Are there any more cricketers who are related to LGBT? I am not quite sure whether LGBT sportspeople are allowed to play international cricket. Abishe (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not many cricketers, especially internationals, are out. The Steven Davies article has sourced information that when he came out in 2011, he was the first international to do so. That's only 6 years ago. Astonishing really. I'm guessing that'll change with time. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!11:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Linda Mienzer, the sources given indicate that she is gay, but there is absolutely nothing to support the assertion by the article's creator that she is transgender. This is a pretty major thing to get wrong in a BLP, and certainly not something that should be left in with a "citation needed" tag, as had happened. I've now removed the claim from the article. Jellyman (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All this "does not meet GNG" nonsense
Okay. Let's take this slowly.
"If a topic has received significant1 coverage in reliable sources2 that are independent of the subject3, it is presumed4 to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
1 "Significant". A completely nonsense, cloudy term which has no actual meaning and can be interpreted a million different ways by a million different people. The fact that we use the two most trusted online databases to back our information up is completely lost on the people who quote this criterion. This is the epitome of "significant", the modern-day equivalent of keeping everything in books rotting at the back of a shelf.
2 "Reliable". As reliable as any online database edited by dozens of people all over the world can be. Or indeed any secondary source by which we may work, which may have been filled with POV puffery by anyone who may have initially contributed to it. It is well believed that Wikipedia is not enough of a "reliable" source of its own and the fact that people quote it in all kinds of academic disciplines is, in many cases, completely discouraged. Thereby to refer to something as "reliable" in a context which very few people in the public eye can actually regard as "reliable" is complete nonsense.
3 "Independent of the subject". If you need convincing of this then really to have hundreds of contributors all over the world contributing to these databases is evidence enough. The people who maintain these sites volunteer their time to do so just as people spend their time whining about articles on here.
4 "Presumed". A completely nonsense weasel word. It either "is" or "isn't". No "presumed".
GNG is nonsense. Anyone who is unwilling to work to SSG is in gross violation of NPOV, the policy we all learn on our first day on the site. This is disregarding the fact that this guideline is utterly contradicted by WP:SPORTSPERSON, rendering both so-called "guidelines" complete nonsense vis-à-vis each other. Bobo.11:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Let's take this slowly.
"If a topic has received significant1 coverage in reliable sources2 that are independent of the subject3, it is presumed4 to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
1 "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
2 "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
3 "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
4 "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
GNG is well-defined, and a key part of the overarching WP:N. Anyone who follows it is creating a well-referenced, article that clearly defines its subject and what makes the subject notable. There are plenty of other guidelines which strive to define notability, and these can all be considered, despite sometimes giving contrary advice and information. Harriastalk17:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not well-defined, and the fact that we use it in order to breach NPOV is a disgusting blot on our project. This project has become Frankenstein's monster and that is truly, truly saddening. There is no point creating any more articles on any further first-class non-English players as they will just get deleted because "lol gng". The very fact that you are admitting that these POV guidelines "strive to define notability" and clearly fail to do so because they are being blatantly contradicted proves that no good is being done with them. Bobo.17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"GNG is nonsense." - Well try starting a proposal to change it at the GNG page. However, there's more chance of a Test match starting in my nearby park today, once they've cleared the snow off the ground. LugnutsFire Walk with Me09:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's changeable. Absolutely not. Things that are broken on Wikipedia are broken for the sake of the project. The fact that it is directly contradicted by other "guideline" pages proves that there is no such thing as consistency. Which is more important in terms of Wikipedia as a project? GNG or NPOV? Bobo.10:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bad news. I'm in no doubt that it's notable, even if acceptable citations seem to be hard to find. It seems ludicrous that Bloggs of Blankshire, who played one f/c match in 1891, should be notable but CA is not. JH (talk page) 10:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is bad news. Ironically, ESPNcricinfo, which I regard as an inferior source of cricket data and stats (though better on news and features), will survive as a standalone article because the various financial machinations that saw it end up in the ownership of Disney and Hearst have been externally recorded and are therefore quotable. Johnlp (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well having an article says nothing about its quality of data. ESPNCricinfo is farrr more popular than cricketarchive - which is only really used by cricket stat nerds. If one wants to know that "it is the most comprehensive.." yadda yadda one can visit the website itself. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recently updated this template but was thinking it's a bit of an unusual one since national teams don't really have a national squad, especially across all three formats. I was wondering what people here thought about it. I was thinking of splitting it into three templates, one each for Tests, ODIs and T20Is and taking the original to TFD but I wasn't sure if there should be three more navboxes inserted in some articles, and even then it would need to be updated ahead of every new tour the team goes on. No other national teams have this navbox, so it could also just be deleted altogether. As it is now it's a bit unwieldy with 31 different players on it. What are other people thinking about it? TripleRoryFan (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you say national teams don't really have a squad. They may have a squad for a tournament or a tour, but a home side just now doesn't have a picked squad as such - players may be regulars, but they will come in and out of the team as required. Why have any template in that case? More often than not they aren't accurate and are suggesting something exists that actually doesn't. I'd get rid of all of them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it looks like OR pretty much. Should be deleted as there's no RS that describe a "Aus nat cricket team squad", and yeah it doesn't make any sense. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please scan through the lists of articles on single countries' Test cricketer articles and ensure that these articles don't suffer from the same "sub-minimal sourcing" as any other articles which may be argued? Right now I could go to an article such as Fazl-e-Akbar and say "I'm voting this for AfD because there are no sources/external links".
Admittedly I set up Fazl-e-Akbar's article, 13 years ago, unintentionally neglecting to insert the external links, but as per the usual arguments, "Surely 13 years is long enough to find sources!!!" (By which I probably mean "People have had enough time to do so by now..!") There are dozens of other examples for every Test-playing nation. Bobo.10:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not crying or anything, just feeling frustrated. Is it just me or am I starting to feel victimized? If we had had a rule all along that only cricketers from majority English-speaking countries had been allowed, this disgusting hacking down of cricket-player biographies would not be happening. What in the name of heck is happening to our project that we're allowing this to happen - by members of our own project. Truly disappointing. It's amusing how quickly this project has gone from "WP:CRIC is way too inclusionist" to precisely the opposite. We've been accused for so long of having an inclusionist cabal - why is the opposite now not true? Pure hypocrisy.
The discussion on the seven Sri Lankan cricketers up for deletion may have taken an interesting turn. Why not spend a bit of time improving the referencing on the huge new batch of first-class cricketers under threat? It could help your cause. Johnlp (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If "please include a reference to CI" had been the solution all along it would have been politely pointed out to us all instead of mass-sending everyone to AfD. Sadly this will presumably still only be seen as "routine aggregated coverage" and still be attacked. Bobo.11:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really make a difference to the content of the articles. If those who were sending the articles to AfD really considered this the problem they would have done this themselves and been cool with it. Bobo.11:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not member of this project and have little or no interest in it. But I hate mass bundling of nomination like is being done now. And hope it will stop. But for the meantime my suggestion is to try to improve any article one is interested in (although we don't own them). To be candid, I hate articles of these players lingering with one citation (which is actually only there to prevent deletion, not build real biography), and Cricket and Rugby players are the typical example of such permanent-stubs. Also I think any player's bio which cannot be expanded beyond such official statistics, is better to left to be deleted, because it is not worthy to write wall of text to argue on that needlessly. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if this had been pointed out to me by the currently fervent deletionist cabal (not including yourself Ammarpad, with the greatest of respect these users have been around longer than you), eight years ago, then this could have been avoided all along. Sadly I have a strange feeling that even if I had included references to both, this would still not have been seen as satisfactory. Bobo.11:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I also find interesting is that several of these deleted articles still have, or in some cases already did have before I wrote them, articles of their own on other language Wikipedias. I wonder if other language Wikipedia projects have different article inclusion guidelines or anything as nonsense and flimsy as GNG to fall back on. Surely in the light of all this rule-buggery, the only relevant policy (considering that GNG is as much a guideline as CRIN or any other) is NPOV... Bobo.11:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bobo192 For me, sadly all are going to have similar fate. All work written by you is not yours or mine but it is in public domain. With time policy change so the criteria. You and I can't defend them forever so I will advise leave them as they are. Whatever people want to do will do without looking at CI or CA. You had done your job well thats it. Störm(talk)14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading those two multi-article AfDs, it appears that WP:V is being brought in and I'm afraid many of our articles have no defence against that. Johnlp is right that all articles MUST provide inline citations. External links are the same as "additional reading" and don't qualify, as I've pointed out in the past. Anyway, I'm on holiday and I'm pissed off with this site so I'm away again. Jack | talk page01:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are two biographies on Cricinfo for individuals with the same name [1] and [2], neither of which are for this article. Only the latter has played first-class cricket. Doesn't seem to exist on Cricket Archive either. Seeing as the article claims they've played in a recent-ish edition of the Ranji Trophy, but there's no record of them, it looks like a hoax. LugnutsFire Walk with Me13:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Yeah that's what I though so. The creator of the article being "sumit764" makes it likely that the only Sumit Rajendra Sharma is him..have PRODed it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
England
