Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2019-08-16 Article assessment Check Category:Unassessed cricket articles for class and Category:Unknown-importance cricket articles for importance: see Assessment Department for details Verifiability Update fair and unfair play, fast bowling, first-class cricket, googly, innings, leg break, limited overs cricket, not out, Pakistan Cricket Board, spin bowling, underarm bowling, wicket, and other fundamental articles classified by the WikiProject as high-importance so that they meet WP:Verifiability policy standards Cleanup 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) Infoboxes Add infoboxes to the player articles found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes Cricket people Create articles about 19th century players who are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/19th century players Create biographies about Bangladeshi players from the task force redlink list Check the listing of key bios at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Key biographies and improve these to at least B-class. Create batting/bowling graphs for cricketers who have excelled in international cricket. Create articles for redlinks present here and here Cricket teams & countries Domestic cricket coverage is needed for Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe; Create articles from redlinks and improve existing articles in List of current first-class cricket teams; National cricket teams; Under-19 national cricket teams Create articles about cricket in these missing countries Create or expand articles on international tours from items in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles Create a link as such on Template:Cr-Aus/doc for Cricket Australia XI Images Add pictures (and remove template from address requests) in these Category:Wikipedia requested images of cricket people Add pictures for grounds missing photos from here On this day in cricket Expand the anniversary coverage for Portal:Cricket at Portal:Cricket/Anniversaries Umpires Expand ICC International umpire panel; ICC Elite referee panel; ICC Associates and Affiliates umpire panel Women Expand Women's cricket, Women's Test cricket and articles about women's cricket generally especially biographies and tours Update A number of lists need to be updated, can be found in Template:International cricketers and Template:National cricket captains Regularly updating cricketers' career stats. Other Export all cricket terms present in List of cricket terms to Wiktionary

/archive1 | /archive2 | /archive3 | /archive4 | /archive5 | /archive6

Would appreciate any feedback on the way this article is progressing, particularly on its length and readability.

Is it alright to go ahead with the current format of descriptive writing ? 1970s is set to become longer than any of the previous decades, though the next three should be comparatively smaller. Tintin 07:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks really good -- I wish we had this kind of article for every Test-playing nation. Some minor NPOV work ('Brian Lara's performance as captain was even worse') and some photos and this would be moving towards readiness for WP:FAC, I think. --Ngb 08:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very impressed by this, too. I suppose the only small point I'd make, a stylistic one rather than being directly cricket-related, is that I think it looks more professional if single-digit numbers are written as words, so that we'd have "one of only two West Indian bowlers..." rather than "1 of only 2 West Indian bowlers...". (I make an exception for scores, so that "he made 26 and 2 in the match" would stay.) Other than that, and the points Ngb made above, I think it's an excellent article and I agree that not all that much work would make it into a candidate for featured status. Loganberry (Talk) 09:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good article, yes. I'm just thinking that the 1930s and 1950s sections are a bit too big compared to the rest of the text? Sam Vimes 14:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The decades are through. Some sections are still quite long despite deliberate attempts to trim them down. Feel free to edit, delete or anything that you think is appropriate to make it more readable. All the stuff that was originally here is in the talk page.

So what's next here ? I can think only of a records section at the end Tintin 14:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC) (With thanks to Jguk and Sam)[reply]

Hello, the project page said I must inquire here about becoming a member. I am a South African cricket fan/player and am eager to help out if I am needed. Please let me know if I ought to join this project. Thanks. Banes 17:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be most welcome. South African cricket is sorely needing coverage on WP - just see List_of_South_African_Test_cricketers for all the redlinks! Ah, and just sign up - most other people do that, but thanks for the polite inquiry. Sam Vimes 17:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I echo Sam's comments -we'd more than welcome more coverage on South African cricket - just pick your favourite area and go for it. If you want to publicise some of the areas you're working on to see if others are interested in helping you, just drop a note either here or on the main WP:Cricket project page, jguk 18:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will join and see about those fiendish little red links.....Banes 10:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The first para on the project page does sort of read like you must enquire here before you can contribute. Could we soften it a bit? -- Ian ≡ talk 12:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. *loves being bold* Sam Vimes 12:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal for a {{cricketbio-stub}} category has gone its week on WP:WSS/P without objection, so I've now created it. Lots of stubs to be moved, as soon as the servers wake up again! Loganberry (Talk) 19:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently on a project to write up the national cricket team articles a bit better. It occured to me as I was in bed last night (yes, really) that the naming of these articles is a bit stupid. For example: "Australian cricket team". This is an encyclopedia article about an Australian cricket team. As such, it could describe what we think of as "Australia", but it could also refer to the New South Wales cricket team, or even Midland-Guildford. The same convention applies to all the other national cricket team articles.

I can see two ways to resolve this horrible ambiguity:

1. Insert "national" before "cricket team". Incidentally, this would appear to be how the names were until a point last year, when they were moved for no apparent good reason.
2. Call the articles "Nation (cricket team)", so "Australia (cricket team)".

I much prefer the former, although I can see merits for the latter. What do other people prefer? Perhaps you even prefer the conciseness of the current form? [[smoddy]] 20:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first option seems to be consistent with the names of sporting teams around WP - re Norwegian national football team, England national rugby union team and Canadian national men's hockey team. I'd tend to agree with that, too Sam Vimes 20:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first option is preferable, especially as it would be consistent with other sports as Sam Vimes says. Of course, England A is a national cricket team as well, as are the women's team, the Under-19s and so on, but I can't see a way around that. Loganberry (Talk) 21:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is England national men's cricket team, if we really want to take PC-ness to the extreme ;) Sam Vimes 21:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but England A is still included in that. Personally I'd hold out for England national men's cricket team for Tests, ODIs and so on (you know, the one with Flintoff in) or something. =;) Loganberry (Talk) 23:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a member of WikiProject Cricket, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's coverage of the sport of cricket. Please feel free to join us.

Hi guys. Just to let you know I have made a template Template:CricketWikiProject-Member, in case any of you want to advertise the WikiProject on your userpages. --Ngb 08:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea :) Why don't you slap a category "Members of WikiProject Cricket" onto it as well? Sam Vimes 08:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 July Angela put a note on Template_talk:Cricket-stub that the cricket ball image was possibly unfree and should not be used on every single page. I answered her, but didn't do anything with the pics, since I'm not very good with Photoshop and things. Now there's been almost exactly a month - could someone crop a picture and replace it in the template? Sam Vimes 11:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll handle it. User:Nichalp/sg 12:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I tried, but I couldn't extract get a perfect circle because of the grass and shadows. If someone could source a high resolution image [>1000px] (preferably of a new cricket ball -- old ones don't look to good). I could extract it more easily. A white (or a light colour) background, is essential, and the seam should be prominent to show it is a cricket ball. User:Nichalp/sg 12:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Just added my name to the list. I'll see what I can do about some of the work that's highlighted on the discussion page over the next few days/weeks.

In the meantime, I came up with a few ideas about restructuring some of the articles while I was doing a bunch of cricket edits recently. These are just my suggestions, I'd be interested to know what other people think.

Firstly, I'm wondering whether the articles on bowling are perhaps a bit more disparate than they should be. We've got seperate articles (some of them very short) on swing bowling, seam bowling, leg cutter, off cutter, indipper and many many more. Wouldn't these be better integrated in a single article about fast bowling? The various articles on the art of spin seem to be similarly divided up.

I can see the point, but at the same time, I find it useful to give a direct link to something like leg cutter when I'm writing an article - and not having to write [[Fast bowling#Leg cutter|Leg cutter]] for example. Maybe we could add short summaries on the main fast bowling page, though, I'm not quite sure how that looks at the moment. Sam Vimes 08:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but it is just a few more characters to type, and I'm sure it'd make more sense to users .. after all we can then cross reference different techniques and styles of bowling to build up a more comprehensive understanding. I'm sure there would at least be some value in combining things like leg cutter/off cutter and indipper/outdipper into a single article each i.e. cutter and dipper.MattDP 13:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second, is it really worthwhile having the career infoboxes on individual bio pages when they contain a link to cricinfo which would give the user the exact same data?

I hope my edits prove of use. I should warn you that I have a rather verbose writing style which sometimes isn't really up to the sort of standards that are required on wikipedia so I won't be offended if any overlong paragraphs get trimmed in the name of clarity! :)MattDP 08:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the infobox - I think it depends on the article. If the article is a sub-stub plus the infobox, I think it has very little value, but when you get articles the size of Brian Close it makes sense to include his statistics as it's quite relevant to judging his performances. A bit like we don't just link to CIA World Factbook and ask people to check that up for area and population data, for example. Sam Vimes 08:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good example, sounds fair. MattDP 13:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just add my name to the list and I'm kinda new to the whole WikiProject thing, but I'll help out alot with the articles pertaining to New Zealand cricket. Any suggestions, or advice? -Mysticflame

Welcome! List of New Zealand cricketers is a good place to start - or List_of_current_first-class_cricket_teams#New_Zealand. Both are littered with red links that cry out for articles :) Sam Vimes 06:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a debate about whether cricket should be about the sport or a disambiguation page (triggered largely, it would seem, by the claim that US people would identify the word "cricket" with the insect). Please see the discussion and "poll" at Talk:cricket. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's happened to it? It doesn't seem to be working on any page that I've looked at. Is this a bug, or has there been a change or decision that I don't know about? Raven4x4x 10:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea! Only thing I can think of is that template redirects seem not to work any more - so people who have written Infobox Historic Cricketer don't get redirected to Infobox Historic cricketer. Weird. Hopefully it's a bug that gets fixed soon... Sam Vimes 10:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of a page where this is a problem? I haven't seen it myself, jguk 15:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a problem earlier, and resulted in the Main Page getting broken. It's fixed now. [[smoddy]] 15:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still have problems with it. The infobox isn't working on the Denis Compton and Bill Ponsford pages, but it is working on others such as Don Bradman and Jack Hobbs. Very strange.

Oops, cancel that. All the pages I said didn't work now do work. Obviously it was a bug. I stil don't see how those two pages didn't work before, but start working the very second that I post a comment about it. Oh well... Raven4x4x 05:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

What format is best to use for referring to non-English seasons? I've been using (eg) 1971/72 in the articles I've written, since that's the format that Wisden and Cricinfo use (okay, actually it's 1971-72), but jguk has written (eg) Category:1971/2 South African cricket season. So, 1971/72 or 1971/2 - or either, or neither? Guidance please! Loganberry (Talk) 22:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1971-72 is actually correct. 1971/72 is acceptable. 1971/2 is generally not considered acceptable. [[smoddy]] 23:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Always repeat the minimum number of digits:) Eg 1971/2, 1979/80 and 1999/2000. (I'm happy to go with the majority view anyway, by the way). It will all soon be moot as we replace [[1971]]/[[1972|2]] with [[1971/2 South African cricket season|1971/2]], or whatever anyway:) jguk 23:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I know I have seen rules on this before. Maybe it was Fowler, but I can't currently find it. [[smoddy]] 23:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've been using 1971/72 for the most part, it occurs to me that maybe 1971-72 would be better, since it would avoid the problem of Wikipedia encountering the slash and treating "1971/72" as a subpage of "1971". Admittedly that doesn't seem to cause problems in practice. The hyphenated style is also what Wisden uses, which might have some bearing. Like jguk, though, I'm happy to go along with any consensus. Loganberry (Talk) 22:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does cause a small problem at talk. See Talk:1971/2_South_African_cricket_season_(chronological_match_reports) Sam Vimes 23:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC) PS: Also, The Times say "When citing periods of years, say 1992-93 (not 1992-3)" [1] Sam Vimes 23:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I don't always agree with The Times ("Day 1"?), but maybe they have a point on this occasion. It might also be worth noting that our counterparts working on football-related articles use the hyphenated style, as in FA Premier League 1998-99. (They also have FA Premier League 1999-00, though, rather than ...1999-2000.) Given that, and the (albeit relatively minor) Talk-related problem you mention, I'm coming around to the idea that perhaps 1971-72 (etc) is the way to go. Loganberry (Talk) 01:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm a traveller from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and started an article on the Calcutta Cricket and Football Club (of Kolkata, India). One of the external pages I found, in the Telegraph here, claims that 1780 rather 1792 would be the actual date for the founding of the club. This would apparently be a major claim to make, esp. in a cricketing context. I was wondering if anyone here had more insight into this? With Thanks - Master Of Ninja 20:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the book I'm currently reading, A Corner of a Foreign Field, The Indian History of a British Sport by Ramachandra Guha, the first cricket club founded outside Britain was the Calcutta Cricket Club in 1792 - 1792 certainly seems to be the received wisdom, jguk 21:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1780 seems to be a relativley new discovery. I saw the same in Boria Majumdar's 'Indian Cricket through the ages' [2]. He has quoted a long paragraph from the Bengal Gazette issue mentioned in the Telegraph. I don't have the book myself. There seems to be some merit in this and IMHO, it is worth atleast a footnote. Tintin 01:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the newspaper article, but it doesn't seem to provide much evidence. There was a "Calcutta Club" in 1780 that seems to have been all-European. But then nothing more is heard about it. Even assuming it was a Calcutta Cricket Club, it may well have folded quickly (as is common for new clubs, and even more so in the early days). There doesn't appear to be evidence of the Calcutta Cricket Club being in continuous existence since 1780, jguk 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm working on the Canberra article and the only cricket team we have is the ACT Coments who play in the Cricket Australia Cup. I was wondering if this project was planning on writng an article on this junior repsesentative competition- or is it not really notable enough for an encyclopedia article?--nixie 03:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cricket Australia Cup is plenty notable and article-worthy. here's a link. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something has gone wrong with cricket-bio stubs. Some silly stuff about NZ cricket appears everywhere. I don't know where to fix it. Tintin 09:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Tintin 09:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that on some articles and I think it might be vandalism. DaGizza 09:16, 24 Aug 2005

All of the sub-categories of Category:Test cricketers have lowercase "test", reflecting the categories used on the underlying articles. However, the Wikipedia standard usage (as discussed here previously) is for uppercase. Do we need some sort of bot to change all of the underlying articles? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, jguk 11:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please. It's very annoying -- Ian ≡ talk 12:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would required someone who runs a bot... ISTR that there is a page to place bot requests somwhere... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bot requests. --Ngb 14:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should I make a request, then? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah please do. User:Nichalp/sg 17:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

What is that metal ringed object that umpires have which are used to find out if the ball is in shape? User:Nichalp/sg 17:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Calipers? A ring? A ball gauge (probably that, since it is a redlink)? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its actually two rings, like a pair of handcuffs. One measures the minimum diameter allowed, and the other the maximim. User:Nichalp/sg 05:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Some Google hits suggest ball gauge [3] [4] (also wicket gauge and/or stump gauge). -- ALoan (Talk) 09:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Created a page for ball gauge. User:Nichalp/sg 14:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've spend the past couple of days compiling a rewrite of the entry of Fast Bowling, keeping very little of the existing text. Because I was aware the changes could be controversial I've saved the text in User:MattDP/fast bowling and I would appreciate it if project members could take a look and post their comments, especially on the subject of whether it would be useful to replace the current entry with my proposed text.

My aim in doing this is twofold. Firstly to write a complete article which will allow a reader to explore the technique, tactics and approaches to fast bowling from a single point because all these issues are interlinked. Currently information on fast bowling is split between a large number of small articles which doesn't allow this complete picture to be built up. Secondly to make the article of a length and depth which would allow it to be considered as a feature article once it had been edited and added to by people more competent than me :) This latter aim is in accordance with the stated aims of WP:Cricket.

Sam Vimes suggested that we keep the small articles to make it easier to write links and to keep existing links and this seems sensible - I have linked to the small articles as appropriate from my revised text. I would suggest that if my text is adopted that these various articles have a "see also fast bowling" added to them. MattDP 10:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, particularly the explanatory images. I've been meaning to take photos of various bowling grips for ages -- but I kept on failing to make time for it. Could you send me a copy of the source file -- I'd like to make similar versions for spin and swing bowling. --Ngb 09:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the update after waiting over 24 hours and having had no negative comments of the subject. MattDP 14:48 August 25, 2005

I agree the smaller articles should be kept, and that they should link back to the new (and impressive) main article. The articles on particular subtopics such as swing bowling can develop the topic in more detail than the sections of the fast bowling page. (And also provide a strong anchor for links to swing bowling rather than a section within another article.) -dmmaus 02:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So that writers are given due recognition for their considerable achievements on cricket's behalf, I've created category:Cricket historians and writers and category:Cricket commentators and moved everyone from the former "writers and broadcasters" category into one or the other (some like Arlott, Johnners, Richie, CMJ, etc. go into both).

I've also started List of works by cricket historians and writers to summarise the important books.

Hi guys. Just to note that there is a proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves to replace the current disambiguation page Bill O'Reilly with Bill O'Reilly (commentator) (a US TV personality), on the grounds that 'the cricketeer [sic.] is nowhere near as notable as the controversial talk show host'. I've expressed my opposition to this -- others might like to do so too. --Ngb 19:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see the irony, but oh well. I've opposed. Sam Vimes 19:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This voting now seems to have moved to Talk:Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)#Requested_move & neither of your votes appear there, FYI. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's improve the Bill O'Reilly page by adding the infobox and expanding the sections. This will circumvent claims that he is less notable. I believe his images should be in public domain. How long for Australia copyrights to expire? User:Nichalp/sg 05:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

According to the Australian Copyright Council copyright in photos lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years - but this law did not come in until 1 Jan 2005, and all photos taken before 1 Jan 1955 are out of copyright anyway (details in this PDF file). Loganberry (Talk) 00:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...all photos taken before 1 Jan 1955 are out of copyright anyway. Would this mean that Cricinfo photos (for example) and others before 1955 are fairuse? -- Ian ≡ talk 14:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be PD. User:Nichalp/sg 14:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Could you suggest a suitable tag? Maybe: {{PD-old}} with acknowledgement of source?-- Ian ≡ talk 15:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

	This image was created in Australia and is now classified as being in the public domain because its term of copyright has now expired. According to the Information Sheet G023v17 (Duration of copyright) (Aug 2014), generally copyright has expired as follows: In 2015, 70-year copyrights under the AUSFTA start expiring.[needs update] Type of material Copyright has expired in Australia if ... As of URAA date material was PD in US if...  A1  Works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown: (not photos) published prior to 1 January 1955 Published prior to 1 January 1946  B1  Photographs (except B2 below): taken prior to 1 January 1955 taken prior to 1 January 1946  B2  Photos published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown: taken prior to 1 January 1955 Published prior to 1 January 1946  C  Artistic works (except A & B): the creator died before 1 January 1955 the creator died before 1 January 1946  D  Published editions1 (except A & B): first published prior to 1980 first published prior to 1971  E1  Commonwealth or State government held2 photographs or engravings: first published more than 50 years ago, or if made before 1 May 1969, first made more than 50 years ago Made before 1 January 1946 The government has declared that expiration of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide; use {{PD-AustraliaGov}}  E2  Commonwealth or State government artistic works (such as drawings) first made more than 50 years ago Made before 1 January 1946 The government has declared that expiration of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide; use {{PD-AustraliaGov}} 1means the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint. 2held means where a government is the copyright holder as well as would have held copyright but reached some other agreement with the creator. PD-Aus Public domain in Australia //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket
This file is NOT necessarily in the public domain in the United States because a non-simple image can only be in the public domain in the U.S.: if it entered the public domain in Australia prior to 1996, or when, after that date, its copyright term expires in accordance with U.S. law. Information about the creation date and creator should be provided. If the image is not in the public domain in the United States, in addition to the license tag for its status in Australia an appropriate fair use license and rationale should be provided, or the image should be proposed for deletion. If the media is in the public domain in both Australia and the United States, it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons. Note: If this image is in the public domain in the U.S., modify the end of the copyright tag from }} to |commons}}. This will replace the preceding U.S. copyright notification with a nomination for this image to be moved to the Wikimedia Commons. Because Australia has long-standing copyright relations with the United States, some Australian works might have a subsisting U.S. copyright. In such a case, the works in question are not in the public domain in the U.S. even if they meet the above conditions.

. I've made a similar tag in commons for expired Indian copyrights. (See this example Image:BEST-first-bus-1926.jpg) Make sure that the link to the .pdf file is present somewhere in the template. User:Nichalp/sg 15:12, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've done the infobox. --Ngb 07:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too concerned about this one. We all know Bill O'Reilly is a leg-spin legend, but IMO this proposal is pretty minor compared to the cricket disambig kerfuffle. -dmmaus 02:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been weighing in on behalf of Tiger and I see that the guy who originally proposed the replacement has withdrawn it. He apologised because he "didn't know the cricketeer (sic) was so notable". Surely that settles it, especially given the massive vote in favour of Tiger. --Jack 12:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP Cricket Test bios

Test bios at 31 Jan 100% completed! Full list Recent changes edit

I've created this template to see how many more bios of Test cricketers we have left to write. The number of Test cricketers by nation is taken directly from our Lists of Test cricketers. The number of bios we have by nation is taken from the categories, eg Category:Australian test cricketers. Some of the articles, particularly the Bangladeshi ones are no more than sub-stubs, but most of them are longer than that. If you update it, please make sure you update for each nation and put the date on it. If you're writing a new bio, try to add an infobox, links to CricketArchive and Cricinfo, and fully categorise it, jguk 14:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]