| Revision as of 04:22, 31 January 2021 editBobo192 (talk | contribs)Administrators116,300 edits HawkAussie← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:25, 31 January 2021 edit undoBobo192 (talk | contribs)Administrators116,300 edits Deletionism for the sake of deletionism...Next edit → | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
| ::::::{{reply|PeeJay}} In short there was a ] discussion which went nowhere and now people who haven't contributed to the project are trying to slowly delete the articles that ain't deemed notable enough. 04:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | ::::::{{reply|PeeJay}} In short there was a ] discussion which went nowhere and now people who haven't contributed to the project are trying to slowly delete the articles that ain't deemed notable enough. 04:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::HawkAussie, just check your signature where you've responded there. ]] 04:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | :::::::HawkAussie, just check your signature where you've responded there. ]] 04:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::As I've said over and over, if people had anything worthwhile to contribute to the project, they'd add to it rather than taking away from it. The fact that they'd rather delete it says more about them than it does the content creators. Deletionism for the sake of deletionism is just censorship under another name. ]] 04:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:25, 31 January 2021
| Skip to table of contents |
 | Cricket Project‑class | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hubert Preston
By chance I noticed that someone had put up Hubert Preston for deletion, which came as a bit of a shock, and I thought I'd better post a "heads up" here. JH (talk page) 16:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll bite
I'll bite. And I'll bite because I consider the individuals I mention to have been close friends. At this rate, every article ever written by myself, 02blythed, Dweller, and AA are going to be deleted. How many of you who appear to be so keen to do so, are as keen to build the project back up again? And how many of you now realize that actually it's the four of us who have done the bulk of the legwork?
There are dozens of Test and ODI cricketers with articles with equally as little content. And in some cases, zero citations or references. If people were so willing to fill these instead we would move forward as a project, not backward.
Someone pass me the stopwatch. Bobo. 17:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Bobo. Thanks for the appreciation, likewise. I'm a tad annoyed that these individuals who have come along nominating articles left, right and centre for deletion have yet to make any positive contributions toward expanding cricket-related articles, or creating new ones. One of them claims to be a member of this project, but seems to edit solely golf articles, with their only link to cricket being the constant nominations/'delete' votes at AfD. There's so many cricket articles out there that need expanding upon and those should be our focus. StickyWicket (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I mean no offence as to your article creation, AA, in fact I was being complimentary about it, I'm sure you realize. As you say, if people had anything to add to the project, they would do so. Bobo. 18:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Bobo. Thanks for the appreciation, likewise. I'm a tad annoyed that these individuals who have come along nominating articles left, right and centre for deletion have yet to make any positive contributions toward expanding cricket-related articles, or creating new ones. One of them claims to be a member of this project, but seems to edit solely golf articles, with their only link to cricket being the constant nominations/'delete' votes at AfD. There's so many cricket articles out there that need expanding upon and those should be our focus. StickyWicket (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL. WP:AGF. WP:NPA. WP:BATTLE. wjemather 18:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's sweet. My question remains. There are threadbare Test cricketer articles all over the encyclopedia which should be formed into much bigger articles, whose main body text hasn't altered in 15 years. Where are the people who are willing to expand the project? Or is it really only the four of us who could ever be bothered? Bobo. 18:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bobo, Sammyrice does fantastic work on New Zealand/Aus/South African cricket coverage too. But fundamentally, as you say, where are the people who are willing to expand the project? Sadly, over the years from the early days with YellowMonkey all the way to now, we've lost great editors and they've never been replaced. StickyWicket (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thankfully in those days we could get somewhere as a project. I'm still amazed at how many gaps there were in coverage of footy and cricket back in 2005 or so. If the protesters had been around then maybe we could have let them fix the situation themselves. Bobo. 21:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, compared to other sports, cricket coverage is truly shoddy. Just look at how many redlinks there are in almost any team's players list. I'm confused as to how CRIN has changed to make itself more exclusionist in recent times, because I have no inclination to read through what is probably 100 pages' worth of text, but the fact that our own members are destroying the project shows that we are nothing but result of Frankenstein himself. If they had anything to add they would do so. I despise the way 02blythed was bullied off the project. Bobo. 21:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am going to add my two cents and when I am not distracted but other means, I am trying to slowly expanded some of the Australian tour articles that was on the delete chopping block way back then. It will be slow for me but hopefully I can make some progress and maybe even expand some biographies along the way. HawkAussie (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't change what I've written, Storm. ;) My comments are my own. Changing my comment without answering my question simply indicates you have no answer to my question. Changing the comment to make it sound like my comment has anything to do with CRIN is disingenuous as to the point I was making, anyway. What I said was, are the same people who wish to delete articles also willing to help build up the encyclopedia as well? Bobo. 10:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am going to add my two cents and when I am not distracted but other means, I am trying to slowly expanded some of the Australian tour articles that was on the delete chopping block way back then. It will be slow for me but hopefully I can make some progress and maybe even expand some biographies along the way. HawkAussie (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bobo, Sammyrice does fantastic work on New Zealand/Aus/South African cricket coverage too. But fundamentally, as you say, where are the people who are willing to expand the project? Sadly, over the years from the early days with YellowMonkey all the way to now, we've lost great editors and they've never been replaced. StickyWicket (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's sweet. My question remains. There are threadbare Test cricketer articles all over the encyclopedia which should be formed into much bigger articles, whose main body text hasn't altered in 15 years. Where are the people who are willing to expand the project? Or is it really only the four of us who could ever be bothered? Bobo. 18:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Still no answer as to why people who habitually send to AfD wouldn't rather expand already existing articles of more notable cricketers. It makes me wonder what people's motives are for contributing to the project. Choosing one at random that in any other case would be taken to AfD under current circumstance and article content: Neville Lindsay. Bobo. 19:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- HawkAussie would be great to see those articles expanded! Bobo, we have lost some very good editors, my biggest beef being how IgnorantArmies was treated for one breach of the rules, disregarding the good work he had done on early Australian cricketers and building a link between them and the early years of Aussie Rules. And Sarastro1 who turned out FA's at a tremendous rate of knots. I'm busy studying, so don't have the time I used to be able to spare, but might come back to finish my personal project on biographies for all FC cricketers killed in war. StickyWicket (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- On this, I can't help but wonder if it is due to America generally viewing cricket as a minor exotic curiosity rather than the legitimate world sport it is. The National Library for Australia trove archives have ample content to create well rounded articles for practically every First-class cricketer in Australia (and really most first-grade cricketers as well) up until the mid 1950's. The only challenge for subcontinent First-class sides is that the majority of coverage didn't make it to the internet and is unlikely to be in English. The presumption that coverage does not exist by those sending articles to deletion seems to be based on the presumption that cricket is a minor curiosity in the world as it is in America (I am not making any accusations about specific individuals though). I have not used it yet but New Zealand has a similar free archive to Trove for Australia here: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/ If the coverage is similar both Australia and New Zealand first-class pages can easily be bumped up at least to start-class with minimal effort. My only 'proper' articles are on Norman Walsh and David Pritchard and took quite a long time to go through, but have slapped together enough to demonstrate GNG for a lot more without too much grunt work. JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- JagarTharnofTamriel any positive contributions are always well received. Pritchard and Walsh look great, they're exactly the sort of well researched additions we need. And I bet that if Walsh was a short-stub, that article would have also fallen foul of this mass AfD. The frustration arises from editors who haven't contributed at all in the past to expanding or creating articles, yet appear out of thin air doing mass AfD's, shouting the odds, ect. There's a way to conduct yourself and that's just not it, I contribute from time-to-time on the Military history project and I wouldn't dream of appearing there and trying to have changes in policy without having contributed to that project first. There are dozens of us who over the years have helped to build, biographically at least, one of the most comprehensive databases of cricketers and their lives, far more so can Cricinfo or CricketArchive will ever offer, especially for obscure ones. We should be focusing on that expansion. Thanks for your contributions :) StickyWicket (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I hesitate to ask
but is the Ultimate Kricket Challenge in anyway notable...? Lugnuts 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: I doubt it to be honest. If A team tours are not considered notable then I really don’t think this is notable. If I were you I would send it to AFD. CreativeNorth (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with @CreativeNorth:, it's definitely not notable for me. ☎️ Churot 08:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks both. I've started the AfD. If anything, it should be nuked for spelling cricket with a "K"... :D Lugnuts 10:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- And nuked for being tacky as. That part of the world has given us some right abominations in the last few years, something the ECB seem to have caught too. StickyWicket (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Don't mention the H word! Or that three team/one game affair in South Africa... Lugnuts 08:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm shocked there isn't a page on the 80s classic Silk Cut Challenge, which was a bit like the UKC, but was played on a proper cricket pitch with proper fielders. It also featured proper all-rounders, not just batsmen who rolled down some pies to each other. Spike 'em (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- AssociateAffiliate KP snacks who for some reason seem to sponsor every single team might disagree :). Now that I think about it the Middle East has brought us a lot of terrible competitions such as all the T10 leagues. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- CreativeNorth yes, what are one of the teams called, the London Hula Hoops :D There's T10 and that other T10 in Qatar, sure there was a 5-over a side thingy in Sharjah too. You'd like to think many of these big name players had enough money not to want to sell their souls to appear in these! StickyWicket (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- I like this article titled "Why the T10 League is Detrimental to Cricket", esp. about the point of some middle-order players not actually batting or bowling in a game... Lugnuts 16:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Good read that Lugnuts. I've never figured why t20 needs to supplanted by these gimmicky Mickey Mouse compeitions. If anyone wants to nominate me to run the ECB, please do, I'll 'scrap the tack'! StickyWicket (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is the greatest thread of all time. SpongeRick Starpants (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts on statbox
Added a statbox to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Norman_Walsh_(cricketer)#First-class_statistics Wondering what thoughts are on how it looks/if it fits wikipedia style? I feel like it could be a handy addition to pages primarily for Australian/English domestic stats (since Cricinfo does have statsguru for international players, and other countries have quite unclear First-class records over the years i.e. South Africa.) JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- @JagrTharnofTamriel: My only issue with this would be what happens if say the player plays for their county/state team and the national team during that same season. Do we combine the stats of both for one season or have them separate. HawkAussie (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'd just have it for the domestic team and exclude the international stats, or have them as a separate section. I quite like it, provides a view of how their season-by-season career progressed. StickyWicket (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Likewise my preference would be to separate international stats from domestic stats with tables for both. Cricinfo archive does have domestic stats separately for domestic seasons (frustratingly stats for tour games for state/county sides are not included in this though and would need to be added manually). JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'd just have it for the domestic team and exclude the international stats, or have them as a separate section. I quite like it, provides a view of how their season-by-season career progressed. StickyWicket (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Retiring
Hi all. I've think I've run my course with this project. Of late I've become particularly annoyed with individuals who seem to be attempting to ride roughshod over a project to which they have not contributed and don't seem to want to engage with. These people will never positively contribute to the project once their purge is complete, so why should I? I genuinely feel for those of us who have put alot of effort into this, I don't think your contributions are at all valued. This is just something I have lost my passion about in the last few months and I hate to say it, but this project is dead. All the best, StickyWicket (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- I sympathise very much with your viewpoint, and am barely contributing myself these days because of this. The purge will, of course, never be over because it's not being done in any rational or methodical way; it's just random vandalism masquerading as intellectual rigour. You (and I to a lesser extent) have the satisfaction of knowing that we contributed to an encyclopedia when being encyclopedic (i.e. comprehensive, as far as possible) was seen as a virtue. Johnlp (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- It says a lot that those who are veterans of the project have given up because of the acts of those who have no interest in creating article content. Interesting that we live in a time where facts are being voluntarily censored. I can't possibly think of a parallel to that situation. You would have thought that those who are so willing to delete content were as willing to contribute content. Or to create it to their satisfaction. Bobo. 11:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I can't help but notice that none of the people who we would wish to respond to this thread have done so. Maybe they can furnish us with their aims for this project and how they wish to achieve them. Bobo. 10:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah that does seem little sus there. HawkAussie (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah as Associate said it is getting quite frustrating. I think that I myself have lost motivation mainly due to the same reasons as them. While Associate probably was of far more help to the project than I ever was, I hope my contributions were infact valued. Goodbye and good luck, CreativeNorth (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Facts = good. Censorship of facts = bad. Bobo. 17:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm curious, who's being censored? I've not really followed this whole thing, so seeing people retiring is a bit of a surprise and a shame. – PeeJay 19:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- @PeeJay: In short there was a WP:NCRIC discussion which went nowhere and now people who haven't contributed to the project are trying to slowly delete the articles that ain't deemed notable enough. 04:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- HawkAussie, just check your signature where you've responded there. Bobo. 04:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- As I've said over and over, if people had anything worthwhile to contribute to the project, they'd add to it rather than taking away from it. The fact that they'd rather delete it says more about them than it does the content creators. Deletionism for the sake of deletionism is just censorship under another name. Bobo. 04:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @PeeJay: In short there was a WP:NCRIC discussion which went nowhere and now people who haven't contributed to the project are trying to slowly delete the articles that ain't deemed notable enough. 04:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm curious, who's being censored? I've not really followed this whole thing, so seeing people retiring is a bit of a surprise and a shame. – PeeJay 19:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Facts = good. Censorship of facts = bad. Bobo. 17:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)