Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

Summary of Cricket WikiProject open tasks
watch · edit · full list

News and announcements

The newsletter titled, The Stump Sapient is slated for a December 2024 launch.
We are looking for Bengali/Hindi/Pashtun/Punjabi/Sinhala speakers to find and translate non-English language sources.

Current discussions

Merger of child WikiProjects

Featured article candidates: Robert Poore
Featured article review: No candidates at present
Featured list candidates: 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup statistics
Featured list removal candidates: No candidates at present
Featured picture candidates: No candidates at present
Other featured content candidates: No candidates at present

Peer reviews: No candidates at present
Good article nominees: 2024 Indian Premier League • 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup • Suryakumar Yadav • India at the Cricket World Cup • Chennai Super Kings • John Holder (umpire)
Good article reassessments: No candidates at present
Recent deaths: Brian Hastings (7 October) • Frank Misson (11 September) • Graham Thorpe (4 August) • Anshuman Gaekwad (31 July) • Ken Palmer (23 July) • Billy Ibadulla (12 July) • David Johnson (20 June) • Raman Subba Row (17 April) • Derek Underwood (15 April) • Jack Alabaster (9 April) • Saeed Ahmed (20 March) • Robin Hobbs (17 March) • Duncan Fearnley (8 March) • Mike Procter (17 February) • Datta Gaekwad (13 February) • Keith Booth (25 January) • Doug Padgett (20 January)

Articles that need... quality assessment (40) • imporatnce assessment (178) • taskforce assigned (0) • project tags fixed (0) • limited improvement (851) • significant improvement (14,465) • significant expansion (31,856)

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by .

This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 17 January 2011.

Shortcut

WT:CRIC

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:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League - looks permanently inactive
Wikipedia:WikiProject Lanka Premier League - been inactive for around 2 years, despite only being created in 2021
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Premier League - looks to be inactive
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]

Comment would be good to get a few more thoughts on this proposal, as only 3 unique editors have posted opinions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling there aren't many of us left... AA (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate not at all, there are editors; I feel like no one is aware about the existence of this talk page. I'll try tagging some editors from the above WikiProjects. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CptViraj, Fade258, Kirubar, ClogWolf, CRICKETMANIAC303, MNWiki845, Vestrian24Bio, Kpddg, Wowlastic10, and Spinin: from WP IPL.

@Human, Wiki.0hlic, Hamza Ali Shah, Badsaad10, CreativeNorth, Tahaaleem, Fade258, Shah Fahad️, USaamo, and Wallu2: from WP PSL.

@CAPTAINRAJU, ASimpleHuman, ANKAN, MahirM, ShahidulHasanRoman, Imtiazahmedrifat, Fade258, ACricketPremi, and Spinin: from WP BPL.

@DTTruth, Randeepa, Fade258, Abishe, Tahaaleem, Kirubar, RishikaPrabashana, ClogWolf, Cricketsudda21, Janeesh22, Spinin, and KjjjKjjj: from WP LPL.

Forgive me if I had mentioned anyone more than once. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed per nom. Task forces are a much better option in my opinion. Easier to manage and work within. As already said if people aren't interested than why have four-five different projects and leave them dormant. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:17, 11 September 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]

Agree per nom. Task forces would probably work out better than the inactive Wikiprojects currently, and it might become easier to manage the never ending increase in T20 leagues. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 23:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The WPs are all inactive and will likely remain such. Clog Wolf _Howl 09:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nom. Better to amalgamate and standardise approaches, particularly with the prospect of ever-more leagues popping up. CarnivalSorts (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nom. Ankurc.17 (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. In my opinion and as per other members creating task forces is far better than creating a single Wikiproject. Fade258 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 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,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/ICC cricket task force or a similar name to focus on the events administrated by ICC itself such as WTC, World Cups, Qualifiers, Champions Trophy, Rankings, Awards etc. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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 ^Talk 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]

Cricket Picture of the Year 2024 – Nominations open now!


	Cricket Picture of the Year 2024

Nominations open from 15 to 31 October 2024 Submit your nominations here
• Organized by the Cricket WikiProject • • About the project • Contests • Mailing list • CPOTY 2024 • • Contest coordinators: AssociateAffiliate and Vestrian24Bio •

– MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 15 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"^[1][2] 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]

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]