Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

English cricket team

I've started to try to improve the English cricket team page. I'd welcome other contributors either adding to the page or offering comments as to which direction it should go to improve it. jguk 19:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain about the "England's greatest ever test matches" section. Headingley 1981 I think most people would agree on, but for all that The Oval 2003 was a thrilling match, there have been quite a few others in that class. Besides, it's unavoidably POV as a category - who is to say what the "greatest" matches were? Loganberry 14:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've also started English national cricket captains. Please feel free to help, but give me an hour from my last edit before improving or adding to the page. Also, any comments are, of course, very welcome. jguk 19:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Player infobox

Moved from main page

• Template:Muttiah Muralitharan infobox Use this as a guide for new infoboxes to other cricketers (and for bowlers, in particular). Squash

Good stuff. Just an idea, but would this with some info on main teams Murali's played for? jguk 09:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I initally just wanted to get the major information out of the way, but I'm very open for any improvements to the infobox. So go ahead and improve the infobox in anyway :). This infobox thing is currently in alpha stages (needs improvement) but when people can be satisfied it is fairly complete, the task of putting it on players article comes. Squash 23:35, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I've made one based on the Murali one, but it is easily adaptable for other players - just the information needs to be entered on their page when you insert the template, so you don't need to go through the complicated process of finding where to input data. It also includes batting and fielding info because I thought this was relevent to all players - and you can just insert n/a for someone who doesn't bowl. An example with Murali can be found here. The code for this example is on the this project talk page... If you can think of any improvements, feel free to do them yourself, or just let me know. You can test the changes by editing my test page mentioned above. Hope you like it --AlbinoMonkey 13:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket - is this a good idea? For active players, this is going to be a devil of a job to keep up-to-date. Surely a link to the Cricinfo database is likely to be more useful? How about a template along the lines of the ones used for IMDb - Template:Imdb name and Template:Imdb title. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right - Template:Cricinfo expands to . It is in use right now on Andrew Strauss (usage: "{{cricinfo|ref=ENG/S/STRAUSS_AJ_01007023/}}"). Is this useful? It would standardise the nearly-ubiquitous Cricinfo links a bit, although Cricinfo is really disappointing. The reference that has to be sent to the template ("|ref=...") ends up a bit clunky because of the structure of the Cricinfo database itself: team, letter, name_and_reference. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

This is the example code for Murali using the Template:Cricketer infobox. Sorry if some of the variable names are a little inconsistent, but if you just cut and paste this code and replace the appropriate variables, it should be fine.

(removed to save space)

Hope you like it. Feel free to make changes to the template, using the page mentioned above as a test. I noticed that the Murali infobox only contained bowling, but I think both are relevant to all cricketers (if they never bowl, you can just enter n/a. But I guess there are arguments either way... maybe creating four different templates: Batter (just batting and catching), specialist bowler (bowling, catching only), All-rounder (batting, bowling, catching), and wicketkeeper (batting, catching, stumpings). I think we should stick to the one template with everything, but I'd like to know what everyone else reckons... --AlbinoMonkey 14:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's sensible to have all this information. While it's useful, if we start doing an infobox this comprehensive for every international cricketer it's going to be a massive update chore any time a Test Match gets played. Cricinfo can do this because of their spangly database, whereas we're doing all of this manually. Unless someone wants to come up with a WikiProject Cricket bot that will do the neccessary infobox updates? --Ngb 15:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have made another template which could be easier to digest (it has batting and bowling on there). Cut down version. It is based on Squash's Template:Muttiah Muralitharan infobox. The Template:Cricketer seems totally unwieldy - it takes up half the window. My template hasn't got début information, or fielding information as yet. Well, it needn't be done apart from at the end of series - the "as of" note at the bottom takes care of this. I would be happy to take on the task of doing much of this - I have too much free time and need a project! Smoddy | Talk 18:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough - now that I look at it a day later, it is too much information. I guess I just got caught up in making it. I think the thing similar to IMDB (mentioned on the main project page) is good, even the "cut down" version looks a bit big. Maybe if the tests and one-days were put side-by-side (as in template:cricketer) instead of on top of each other in the cut down version, it would be a bit more usable. --AlbinoMonkey 23:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)+

I agree. Use the cut-down version, put Test and One-day figures side by side. I reckon that would strike a decent balance between providing useful information and allowing us to keep on top of updating it. --Ngb 11:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Template:Muttiah Muralitharan infobox/Cut down. Smoddy | Talk 12:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, now that is actually rather good. It is still going to be a difficult job to keep active players' details up to date, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have made this latest version into a template. I have created a version for Murali with the template information Muttiah Muralitharan/infobox for an example. I have also made a page here showing the coding on Murali's page. What do we think? I reckon the actual grunt work would be minimal. Smoddy | Talk 14:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (I've made a slight modification to the template -- you'd missed out the closing bracket on the country abbreviation.) One thing: what about cricketers who we don't have a picture for? Is there a way of removing the picture cell in the infobox? --Ngb 15:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. There is no way that I can find, I am afraid. The best idea I have is to have a "silhouette" image, the default for everyone where there is no allowable image. I am afraid I am not au fait with the regulations as to what images we can include. Obviously we can have pictures we ourselves took (I can supply a few, especially of England players), but there is an obvious problem when it comes to Don Bradman and Garfield Sobers. For this reason, the silhouette is my preferred way of getting round this in the short term. Perhaps it would also be possible to email appropriate bodies, stressing that Wikipedia is a non-profit, educational institution. Smoddy | Talk 15:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am similarly unsure on image copyrights. I was going to write to my own county cricket club (Durham) to ask if we could use the player pictures on their website, but Wikipedia:Image copyright tags suggests that we are no longer allowed to upload images that are copyrighted but where we have obtained Wikipedia-specific permission: the only allowable thing is if the copyright holder agrees to license the image under one of the GNU, BSD or Creative Commons licenses, which I think would be much more difficult to obtain permission for.

I suppose the thing to do would be to write to Wisden/Cricinfo and ask if we can reproduce their images of players under an appropriate license? We can stress the characteristics of Wikipedia you mention above, point out that all our pages on cricketers link to the appropriate profile on Cricinfo (and thus we are driving traffic their way), and promise to attribute all images to them? I don't know what response we might expect to get from them. I suspect a flat 'no', but I suppose it's worth a try...

--Ngb 18:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep I am definitely in support of the new version (template). In regards to players with no picture, unless some Wikipedia expert knows how to otherwise, I think we should just create a new template with no picture, just calling it Template:Infobox Cricketer (no pic) or something. It wouldn't take much time at all, just a matter of cut and paste. And the codes would be exactly the same, so if we lose or gain a pic, it would just be a case of changing the name of the template on the page and entering or removing the image parameter... If there are no objections to the new Murali infobox, we should start adding them. --AlbinoMonkey 21:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've tried it out, choosing Ashley Giles at random, using a silhouette for the picture. Any opinions? --Ngb 00:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That looks fine, Ngb. I think the silhouette is a better method than the "no pic" template Albinomonkey was suggesting for the reason that it invites users of Wikipedia to contribute when they otherwise might not. I'll do the same for Mark Butcher (my pet article). Smoddy | Talk 10:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I have done Andrew Strauss as well. I'll have a look through my digital photos later, hopefully I have pictures of at least some England, New Zealand and West Indies players. I may ever have some SL/SA ones. Australia can come next year... Smoddy | Talk 10:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeh and I've asked for speedy deletion for Template: Cricketer, we should probably do this also with all the ones we've made for experiments... I sort of "archived" it in the subpages of this project, at here, mainly just for reference purposes if I need to make one for something else. --AlbinoMonkey 22:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've had all my test pages speedily deleted as well - I couldn't see any point in archiving them though. And I forgot. I'm going to try to get the rest of the current England players done very soon, then will move onto other countries. Perhaps the list of cricketers would be a good target. Unfortunately, many articles in there barely qualify for stub status. That discussion, however, is for another time. Smoddy | Talk 13:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very good. Just an other advert for my cricinfo template: the "source" line could use {{cricinfo|ref=ENG/S/STRAUSS_AJ_01007023/}}, although this is a bit opaque. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. Now Infobox is definitely better. How ever I am still concerned that all my edits into introducing the infobox are now gone... :-\ Anyway maybe this infobox that is modded by sMODdy should not be changed from now, and keep it as the 'stable' or 'definite' version of the infobox. Squash 01:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to question that (Eng) whether it should be (ENG) or not, as it is an abbreviation. Squash 01:25, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be (ENG), despite the fact that I have put all my copies so far as (Eng). I shall change this! Happy Christmas Smoddy | Talk 10:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. :) Squash 00:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bowling style abbreviations

Sorry if this a stupid or obvious question, but where does the abbreviation for the bowling type come from? eg Murali is listed as Off spin (OB) - I did Shane Warne, and just put Leg spin (LB), but wasn't sure if LB was the right thing... where'd you get it from? AlbinoMonkey 08:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you were such as huge cricket fan, then you shoud know (from viewing live scorecards on cricinfo) the abbreviations of such bowlers. Shane Warne bowls Leg Break Googly and therefore the abbreviation is LBG or just LB like that of OB (Off Break)... There are also RF, RM, SLA, LBG, OB, and more... Squash 09:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a small point, if we were to follow Wisden's lead, there is a subtle difference between LB and LBG. LB is leg breaks, while LBG is leg breaks and googlies. Not every leg-spinner has a googly, and these are listed as LB. However Shane Warne does have a googly (even if he never bowls it), so the correct listing is LBG. Smoddy | Talk 16:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added a table of bowling style abbreviations to the Types of bowlers in cricket article, which should both be useful for readers and helpful to us as we write the infoboxes. :) I'd appreciate it if you guys would give it a quick once-over to make sure I've not missed anything obvious out, or made any glaring errors. --Ngb 17:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeh I knew I'd seen it somewhere, I thought it was on the player page, but couldn't find it there... Thanks. --AlbinoMonkey 23:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images for cricketers' infoboxes

Good news! I have contacted Quadell, who seems to be an expert on imaging matters, about using Cricinfo photos for our infoboxes. He seems to think that we have a case for fair use of the images. His reply is at User talk:Smoddy#Cricket copyright issues. Trusting in his guidance, I shall start to use the Cricinfo images in the infoboxes created so far. May I suggest we have a list of players who have proper articles with infoboxes. I have started this page at List of cricketers/full articles. Please add the players as you put infoboxes on their pages, so long as they are of sufficient length to be called an article. (For example Nasser Hussain can go on this page once it has an infobox, but Colin Croft really shouldn't, in my opinion). Any thoughts? Smoddy | Talk 15:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quadell suggests we use the small versions of the pictures - to do this, add "/inline" to the URL of the image file. Thus the Mark Butcher image is at http://uk.cricinfo.com/perl/picture.cgi/046373, but the image I think we should use is http://uk.cricinfo.com/perl/picture.cgi/046373/inline. I also think we should give the images names along the format "Forename Surname (cricketer)" along the Mark Butcher lines. Any thoughts? Smoddy | Talk 15:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, well, I was going to raise a related point: surely we can't just copy images and statistics from cricinfo willy-nilly? Little snippets that get summarised in a write-up are one thing, but taking images and sets of stats so that Wikipedia ends up essentially copying chunks of the cricinfo database: that looks to me like a potential problem. It is also worth mentioning that "fair use" of copyyrighted images only applies in the US (although there is a similar concept of "fair dealing" in the UK) but the copyright status of cricinfo images clearly does not just engage the law in the US. Perhaps I am being over-cautious; perhaps someone can allay my fears... -- ALoan (Talk) 01:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I partially agree with ALoan. I think we're OK with the statistics: after all, they're simple facts, and we could get them from anywhere. I'm not sure we should acknowledge Cricinfo in the infobox though, because it makes it look as if we're just copying their database. As for the images, I would be very, very surprised if a court thought that there was no copyright violation, and I think we should remove them. (In all these comments, I admit I have no expert knowledge.) Stephen Turner 08:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, at least for the moment, I shall delete the images from the pages I have created. I don't reckon there is a problem with crediting Cricinfo. Incidentally, as the Wikipedia servers are based in the US, I think US copyright applies. Smoddy | Talk 10:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the images on Cricinfo are copyrighted by a variety of organisations. Most of the pics of England players are their ECB portraits, but the pictures of other players are often copyrighted to Getty Images or other photographic agencies.

What I think we should do is write to the ECB to ask if we can have Wikipedia-specific permission to use their player portraits, and to other national boards to ask if they *have* player portraits and, if so, whether we can have Wikipedia-specific permission to use them. We can then upload them and tag them as Permission and Fair Use, which is a non-deprecated tag for image uploads.

If we reckon this is a good idea, I'll write to the ECB and see if we get anywhere.

--Ngb 11:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Historic Cricketer

I was just infoboxing up the Clarrie Grimmett article, and I realised that various parts of our infobox template are inappropriate for cricketers from the period: in particular, there were obviously no one-day internationals at the time, and it was before an over was standardised to six balls, so the records have 'balls bowled' rather than 'overs bowled'. So I've made Template:Infobox Historic Cricketer, which has the ODI section replaced with domestic first-class statistics, 'overs bowled' with 'balls bowled', and has date of Test debut/date of last Test rather than the 'accurate as of' date. Any thoughts? --Ngb 11:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems a good idea to have something slightly different. I wonder if the first class averages are sufficiently interesting though? Why not just reduce it to a single column?

Another point is that there are a number of retired cricketers who have played ODIs. What sort of box should they get?

As I'm typing this, I'm trying to think if there's a way to have one consolidated format. Suppose everyone got balls bowled instead of overs bowled. Everyone could have first and last Test, and first and last ODI, and "statistics last updated" (is that too many dates?). Then maybe there could be a one-column version (without ODIs) and a two-column version. Does that make sense?

Stephen Turner 13:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a good box, but I'd like to see somewhere for "major teams" played for, and I don't like the big box saying there's no picture. (I'm not sure it is of much benefit anyway - who is likely to have their own picci of Clarrie Grimmett handy? and if they did and were willing to contribute it, they'd probably do so without a box.) I like the idea of different boxes though. I think it'd be good to have one for test captains showing their captaincy record too. I'll develop one myself once I've added articles for each English cricket captain if someone hasn't got there before me. jguk 20:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think first class averages are still extremely interesting. Anyone up to creating a three column version? Philip 03:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Definition of partnership

Although it's mentioned in Cricket terminology, do people think it would be good to have a full definition-type article on partnership (cricket)? As well as the obvious link from partnership, there is an overlap with some of the material in wicket and innings, and possibly with some of the other cricket articles. Unfortunately I don't have time to write it myself at the moment. Anyone want to have a go? Stephen Turner 08:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Categorisation of players

What categories do we/should we have for each player? Off the top of my head, the following categories could be considered for each player:

• The fact that he is a Cricketer (Category:Cricketers)
• Nationality (Category:English cricketer (or whatever)
• Skill (Category:Bowlers, Category:Batsmen, Category:All-rounders, Category:Wicket-keepers, Category:Umpires)
• Whether the player was a Wisden Cricketer of the Year (Category:Wisden Cricketers of the Year)
• Whether the player has captained his national side (Category:English cricket captains (or whatever))
• Whether the player has played in a test match (Category:Test cricketers)
• Whether the player has played in an ODI (Category:ODI cricketers ??)
• What first-class teams a player has played for (Category:Surrey cricketers (for example)

Any others? jguk 19:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well the categorisation scheme that you are using for the profiles you are creating is extremely ambitious. I really don't have much confidence that it will all be applied to the (hopefully) thousands of profiles that will eventually be created by dozens or hundreds of different Wikipedians. I wouldn't bother with the "test cricketer" category, but if we have that, we must have a "one day cricketer" category as well. Judging from the fact that you are working on 19th century players you are a pretty traditional chap, but these profiles are hopefully going to be around forever, and they will be used be a lot of people who are more interested in one day internationals than in test matches - an increasing proportion of cricket followers sadly.

There's no harm and some interest in you entering all of these categories on the profiles you create, and I will try to remember them all too, but don't be surprised if lots of profiles are created that are missing a few. Of course more categories can be added to a profile at a later stage, but I would still consider dropping the "test cricketer" category. I should think that the majority of profiles will always be for international cricketers, and apart from fringe players the test and one day international cricketers categories would contain largely the same people. I don't really see the value in having what could eventually be lists of hundreds of names of "English test cricketers" listed in a category menu, given that all of those names will also be on the "English batsmen" or whatever category menu, which at least gives a reader something to go on if he hasn't heard of the player. And on the other hand, if you have heard of the player, do you want or need to be told before you reach his profile that he was a test cricketer? Presumably you would know whether to look on the batsmen's menu or the bowlers' menu or whatever, or you could just type his name in the search box. This isn't a huge issue, but there are so many profiles to create, and I think that making it harder work by giving people more to remember to do could drain our enthusiasm. If I see a category on Wikipedia, I like to envision it being complete one day, and I think that these categories would take a great deal of work for the sake of a small benefit.

On a more immediate point, I really don't think you need to put your profiles in the main "Cricketers" category on top of the various subcategories. If we all do that we'll end up with a huge baggy list that isn't much use to anyone, but which obscures the other articles on that menu. I was going to do Roger Harper as my first experiment with the Infobox, but I really must get some sleep now, so it will have to wait. Philip 02:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think they may, in time, be quite interesting. More categorisations can't do much harm. And I think the test cricketers categories will be useful as we will have articles about the more notable non-test players (what about players before 1877, for instance?), or those on the fringe who never got there? You're right that a one-day cricketers category would be interesting too. Personally I would encourage use of Category:Cricketers for every cricketer we have. Not so much as those looking for cricketers who already have an article, but more for those who wish to see if we already have an article about a cricketer. I've already created Gubby Allen as I hadn't realised someone else had created George Oswald Browning Allen.jguk 21:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right that they can't do any harm, but you'll need to try not to be disappointed if not everyone is as thorough.

On the point about putting all of them in "cricketers", I really must strongly object. This is not in line with Wikipedia policy on categorisation. The same argument could be used in every subject area and there would be thousands of entries in some categories. This seems to cause problems with subcategory menus (see Category:British writers) and serves little purpose as people who want to find out whether there is an article on a particular player can do so more quickly by typing his name in the search box. Also, I have heard that a future version of the Wikipedia software will enable users to "look through" a category and see the articles in its subcategory if they wish. Philip 02:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK - though it would be useful if we could encourage people to at least categorise by nationality, even if no other categories are entered (eg Category:English cricketers, Category:Australian cricketers, etc.). Then it should be possible to find any cricketer who does have an entry very easily (which will enable me and anyone else so interested to go into them and add more categories) :) jguk 19:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category Structure

Goodness, I'm new here, and following the Wikipedia decree "Be Bold" I have almost finished finished restructing the cricket section, and adding lots of category links. Now I have discovered this project!

What do you think to what I have done? The main alternative to the way I have arranged things that I considered was to have a much smaller main menu with less than ten main categories, one of which could have been "Cricket by country". The reason I didn't go with this approach is that the other headings are harder to define, especially for all the sub-categories called "cricket - something". I could come up with a list of six or so that I would understand myself, but I think that it would have been too broad brush to be helpful to people who don't know much about cricket.

Is three dozen first level sub-categories too many? I'm inclined to think not, but I know it might look a little daunting, so I tried to highlight the more important ones, but the highlighting didn't work.

As for the overview "cricket" article, I think it looks silly hanging around at the bottom as the only article in the main menu. Perhaps we could hightlight it more boldly where it appears above the menu.

Philip 23:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well it sorely needed doing, and the scheme you've chosen seems fine to me. It's clearly organised, and it doesn't really matter which method of organising the category gets used as long as it's clear. As to the overview article being in the Cricket category itself: when I reverted your removal of the article from that category, I didn't realise that you'd mentioned it above the menu. However, that's because I habitually skip over bumpf above the category listings, and I think most people probably do the same. --Ngb 10:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trouble with women's cricket category

I created Category:Women's cricket, and allocated my stub article Women's test cricket to it, but it is not showing up in the category, even though the categoey link appears on the article's page. I thought this might be due to the apostrophe because I also had problems with another category with an apostrophe in it's name, but I asked about this on the helpdesk and someone pointed out that there are some category's with an apostrophe which are working normally, and no one offered a solution. Any ideas? Philip 10:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The link to the category isn't showing up above, but it's in the main menu Philip 10:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've got the opposite problem on Category:Bangladeshi cricket captains, where Naimur Rahman appears twice. If anyone knows how to sort out that one, please let me know, jguk 12:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the box template thing makes him appear automically, so the standard format category link isn't required. I've removed it for you.Philip 16:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Any idea why that's the case here -the box template thing is on about 70 other articles, and there are no problems there? jguk 16:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I only looked at that one. Philip 02:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lists of test matches

I've started List of test matches and England tests. If anyone has any comments about format, style, etc. I'd be grateful to hear them before I get too stuck in:) jguk 18:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this list really going to be practical? Nice idea as it is, this site could end up becoming a copy of Cricinfo. The next step will be pages with scores from every test, and this would end in far too many pages and a huge administrative effort.

Well it's up to you what you do with your time, but that is going to take you ages, and the end result will be coming one can summon up on Statsguru in seconds. What I suggest instead is that we add a link to Cricinfo and specifically to statsguru at the top of various statistical categories. Philip 03:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's probably one of those lists that's more interesting to compile than to read. It's certainly motivated me to buy a job-lot of cricket books on days gone by. I've moved the list so far to test matches in the 19th century, and will write an article about it. My copy of Lord's 1787-1945 by Sir Pelham Warner arrived today, so my reading can commence:) jguk 21:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WG Grace

My attempt to add an infobox to WG Grace is not as successful as it should have been. I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it. Could someone take a look at it? Thanks, jguk 12:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. It isn't working for me, either (I have attempted a cropped version of the other image). Smoddy | Talk 15:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I've just seen how to solve it - moving the picci down the page makes it work, jguk 15:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Legit or not?

Infobox

Template:Infobox Cricketer uses information from a copyrighted website, Wisden Cricinfo. Would this make it legit or not? Isn't that just the same as copyvio (copyright violation)? I don't think it is a good idea to put infoboxes in the mass when we haven't got explicit permission to do so. Sorry, but it's better to be safe then sorry - perhaps someone can e-mail them on behalf of Wikipedia or something. Squash 22:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The information we are using is facts (and facts obtainable from a wide variety of sources, at that) and therefore not copyrightable. --Ngb 22:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see... Thanks. Squash 22:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, we could just as easily take statistics from other sites - for example CricketArchive. jguk 23:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the cold light of day, I am beginning to wonder if it is worth having the infobox containing statistics at all. I reckon it might be better served simply by having name, length of career, teams represented and bowling/batting style. As to the matter of copyright - I don't see how it could be and infringement. The data is not copyrighted to them, only their presentation. If we wanted, we could source it off a variety of websites (howstat, channel 4 etc.). We have cited them. Even if we they did have copyright (and I fail to see how they could), the information is probably fair use. Smoddy | Talk 23:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like having statistics. They give a very good quick impression of a player's level of achievement. I agree that they can't be copyrighted, though I've already argued above that we shouldn't credit Cricinfo, to avoid them complaining even if such a complaint is without foundation. Stephen Turner 11:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scores cannot be copyrighted. I don't see how the presentation is also copyrighted as one is free to present statistics in ASCII mode in whatever way fit. Nichalp 19:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Portraits in infobox

I have seen that some infobox have portrait of some cricketers from cricinfo. If you look at an example say:

Portrait of Sachin Tendulkar

You will see at the bottom it says

Image: © Getty Images 2004. This image may not be reproduced without
specific consent from Getty Images

Meaning it was licensed or cricinfo was granted permission to use it. Whilst it is copyright and we can claim it under fair use. The section that says "This image may not be reproduced without specific consent from Getty Images" is the problem. We either need to get permission from Getty Images OR not use pictures at all. Squash 22:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeh this is true - we probably shouldn't use them. Wikipedia doesn't want any more pictures that have Wikipedia-only permission as others might download and use the picture without seeing this permission. In the ones I've done, I haven't used any Cricinfo pics, and only use a pic if it is on the page already (eg Imran Khan). AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 23:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Flags in infobox: A question

Which flag should we use where a player has played international cricket for more than one team - for example: Kepler Wessels, Gavin Hamilton, John Traicos and Clayton Lambert? Similarly, what about when a player changes nationality but has not played international cricket for his adopted nation. For example, Stuart Law is British, but played all his representative cricket for Australia? Or Harold Larwood who went the other way? jguk 19:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would go in for the flags which represent the represented team for most of a player's career eg. S. Law=Aussie. Its the most logical. In case a player has played for two teams for equal duration, eg Gavin Hamilton, then both would be needed to be displayed. Nichalp 19:43, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

I would say display the flag for which the player is most noted for appearing for. For example, despite Wessels's success for Australia, he is most identified as the captain who brought SA from the wilderness. Hamilton had a couple of failed matches for England, but was well-known for his Scottish exploits in the 1999 world cup. Law is clearly best-known as an Aussie, and Larwood as an Englishman. Lambert is perhaps the most difficult, but his greatest success as an international player came with WI, and it is with that team that I associate him. Smoddy | Talk 22:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That seems ok (though Hamilton only had one international appearance for England, getting a pair with the bat, and 0 for 63 with the ball). What about John Traicos and the Nawab of Pataudi, snr (who played 3 tests for England against Australia, and 3 tests for India against England) though? (Who else have I forgotten, by the way?) jguk 23:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree - Hamilton is better known for his Scottish exploits, and would be better with the appropriate saltire. Traicos is difficult - I would say SA, given that he played first-class cricket there (I think). The Nawab of Pataudi - I would say he should go under India, a) because he captained them and will have the appropriate Indian captain box at some point; b) because his name makes more sense as an Indian. Smoddy | Talk 18:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Measure by innings Squash 05:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)