Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:32, 28 January 2010

1948 Ashes series

First Test

Second Test

Third Test

Fourth Test

Fifth Test

Don Bradman

Lindsay Hassett

Sid Barnes

Bill Brown

Ron Hamence

Neil Harvey

Ian Johnson

Bill Johnston

Ray Lindwall

Sam Loxton

Colin McCool

Keith Miller

Arthur Morris

Doug Ring

Ron Saggers

Don Tallon

Ernie Toshack

Keith Johnson

Template:OzTestCaptain Advert

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, 95

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WT:CRIC

Template:WikiProject Cricket Navigation

Geoffrey Boycott and hand drawn images

A user has questioned the use of hand drawn images on the article. At the moment they are in place because there are no alternatives - no images can be found despite extensive searches online for those with suitable licence and requests to flickr users to release photographs. I'm of the opinion that an illustration is better than nothing, until a real photo can be found. User:ukexpat believes they detract from the article and that no photos are better than illustrating ones, particularly given that they aren't professional drawings and are just what Misplaced Pages users can come up with.

I can recall other articles where illustrations have been used in lieu of photographs and is has been (albeit grudgingly) accepted. User:ukexpat recalls a previous debate where consensus dictated that they weren't acceptable. While he/she looks for a link for such discussion, perhaps we could simply start a new one here? SGGH 15:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't help with previous examples, but it seems daft to argue that an absence of images is better than use of illustrations. --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? If the illustration is poor (and I think these are, no disrespect to the artist), they are of little or no encyclopedic value, IMO and could, arguably, be a BLP violation. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He's recognisible from them, so they have encyclopedic value. Your personal POV about the quality of the image is neither here nor there. That said, I'm interested to learn more about how they can breach BLP - please explain. If they breach BLP they should be speedied, not merely removed from the biog. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well we have a subjectivity issue here - I don't think that he is recognisable from them so as far as I am concerned they are of little encyclopedic value, you obviously don't share that view - so we have differing POVs here. As for the BLP issue, a badly drawn image (again, subjective) is in my view just as bad an uncited controversial comment. If I were Boycott looking at those images, I would be insulted... but then maybe that would spur me into providing one with an appropriate license. I don't want to make a big issue out of this, there are more important things to deal with, but I do think we need a wider consensus on this issue generally. – ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you have summarised my points accurately. I think, however, that this is a wider issue than just this article. The recent discussion referred to (that I am still trying to find) related to the use of hand-drawn images in BLP articles generally, not just this one or other cricketer bios. And I am a "he"! – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to offend by saying he/she only to find you were a she/he! :) WP:BLP did not occur to me I do admit. Perhaps a link to this discussion from the BLP talk page? I'll go add one. SGGH 15:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP has the following content which I think may be relevant: "Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability. No original research." IMO, the images are NPOV because they do not portray the subject in any condition where any conclusions could be drawn which potentially violate BLP; they are verifiable in the sense that it is what they look like, and that can be checked in non-Misplaced Pages sources; in terms of original research, as a mug shot and a shot of batting they aren't researching any facts that aren't out there already (how he looks, and that he plays cricket). Thoughts? SGGH 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But on the other hand they do portray the subject from the artist's point of view, much more so than a photographic image. – ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there someone in Cape Town who could corner the man and take a happy snap? Johnlp (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We do live in hope. He's not exactly camera-shy. Meantime, I'm unconvinced by arguments that they're covered by BLP. And as the arguments regarding the relative artistic merit are entirely subjective, they should remain in the article. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just e-mail the TMS team and ask them to take one and donate it. Let me try that. – ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail sent, fingers crossed! – ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that "licensed for use on Misplaced Pages" isn't enough, it has to be under creative commons or public domain or the like. SGGH 16:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked many times but unfortunately none of us appear to be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. I used to think our best bet was to request the release of a flickr photo by its uploader, but no luck so far. SGGH 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the picture in the infobox looks (to my eyes) a pretty good depiction of Boycott, and shouldn't be problematic. The image lower down, I'm not so sure about. Although probably not intended as such, it looks more like a caricature, and I'm unsure how much that adds to the article? Harrias (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It was used first before anyone ever really considered asking the artist to draw the second image. It has just remained there since then, and when new images arrive it will probably go. SGGH 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

this is a related discussion which concluded that the images were unsuitable. SGGH 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very confusing discussion, but the main gist of it is about drawings rendered from copyright photos therefore not being fair use. Were either of these drawings created from photos? They'd needn't necessarily have been, but they might. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the may have been based on a series of photos to get the likeness, but I'm not sure. If they were they might have to go, I shall ask. SGGH 16:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A single drawing based on a number of photos may be sufficiently distant to satisfy fair use criteria. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

At least this sketched picture draws national coverage! BBC Text commentary, Fourth Test, Day 3, 13.59:

"That pencil sketch of Boycott on his Misplaced Pages page looks like a rubber Boycott mask you might buy in a cricket-themed joke shop. If you were going to conduct an armed robbery, what cricketing mask would you don?" (Ben Dirs)

—MDCollins (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sid Barnes on the main page

On the day before his birthday, at the moment YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saw that, and thought the date was strange. I suspect it is a coincidence. -- Mattinbgn\ 05:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's smashing. Worth dropping Raul a line? It may be changeable... --Dweller (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It was coincidence. Jan 19 was already booked for some others. Now on Jan 23 YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why his infobox and CricketArchive profile have a birthday of 5 June?—MDCollins (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC) It passed FAC with this error too. Oops.—MDCollins (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In another bit of coincidence, I drove down Sid Barnes Crescent in Canberra yesterday. --Roisterer (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it sunny today? SGGH 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There was considerable confusion about Barnes' birth date and place of birth (mainly as a result of Barnes' own obfuscation). His birth date was discussed at length Smith (1999). I could have sworn we had some lengthy discussions about the date on the article talk page as well but I can't find them. Perhaps the discussions were on this page. -- Mattinbgn\ 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course that does not excuse the error of two different dates in the article and infobox. -- Mattinbgn\ 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If we have RS for both, it's not really our place to decide between them. I think the infobox should read "disputed" and the dispute should be briefly dealt with in the section that deals with his early life. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Smith's biography of Barnes is quite clear - Barnes was born on 5 June 1916 in Annandale, New South Wales. This agrees with the date given by CricketArchive and Cricinfo. Not sure at all where 19 January comes from at all, it is unsourced in the article. Note 3 in the article gives some explanation of the discrepancy in place and in year (but not specific date); Smith speculates that Barnes tried to pinch a few years after the war. I don't believe the body of the article is the place for a detailed discussion of various discrepancies; the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources gives the birth date and place and this is what we should use. The discrepancies can be discussed in the notes. -- Mattinbgn\ 10:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we should ditch the unsourced date. A trawl through the article history might reveal where it came from. Might have been me! lol --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We could always wait 6 more years for it to appear under the family history records section of the NSW registry of births!

And just to chuck another date into the pot... his military service record has 5 June 1917!The-Pope (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked in Wisden, and it too has 5th June, 1916. JH (talk page) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mattinbgn made the mistake when he rewrote the lead and then later corrected the year only. I wonder who was actually born on that day? Everyone else just missed it. I've corrected it now. The-Pope (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugger! That was careless. Good find -- Mattinbgn\ 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Postcard picture copyright question

This may seem like a bit of a silly question but I know little about these things. I'm sure there's a certain time limit copyright on pictures runs for until it expires and I came across a nostalgia postcard which features Herbert Sutcliffe and Jack Hobbs walking out to the pitch in September 1931 for the Scarborough Cricket Festival. However the publishing mark notes the date MXMXC (1990) so I'm guessing this wouldn't be allowed to be uploaded on Misplaced Pages? I just thought I'd ask on the offchance that it would be, I'm not bothered but it's a good close frontal shot and thought it may be of some help. Tony2Times (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it 70 years from date of death of originator (ie, the photographer whose copyright it is)? Johnlp (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jappalang may be able to provide assistance, if asked directly. This editor review FAC articles for PD images. -- Mattinbgn\ 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't a photo of them in Australia in 1928-29 be found? YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Wally Hammond/archive1

Up and running courtesy of Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Michael Smith

This is a little tricky. WP:COMMONNAME means the article should definitely be Mike Smith, IMHO. We already have a Mike Smith (cricketer) who'd fufil WP:PRIME for sure. Should this one be

I'd say Mike Smith (cricketer, born 1967). Harrias (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Though looking at it, I wouldn't necessarily agree with your assessment per WP:PRIME, I wouldn't say either is particularly more likely than the other to be looked up? Harrias (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I was thinking of M. J. K. Smith which just adds to the complexities of Mike Smiths. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but I'd prefer Mike Smith (Gloucestershire cricketer), on the grounds that the county he played for is more useful helpful than his year of birth in telling me which Mike Smith the article is about. And I see that form is already in use as a redirector. JH (talk page) 14:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the counties better than the birth year in principle, especially where there is clarity about which teams people played for and where the cricketers are relatively well-known. But now that players turn out for umpteen different counties in the course of a career, it gets a bit cumbersome (see the various David Smiths/Al(l)an Joneses for examples). I notice with soccer players, where there seem to be a lot more people with the same names, or maybe just a lot more people, the birth year tends to be used and think there may be some MOS directive about this somewhere; footballers obviously move around from club to club more than cricketers have been wont to... until recently. Johnlp (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cricket articles at review

Peer review

• Wally Hammond • peer review

Featured article

• Second Test, 1948 Ashes series • review
• Sam Loxton • review

Featured list

• List of England Twenty20 International cricketers • review
• List of international cricket centuries by Donald Bradman • review

Good article

• Sourav Ganguly

Harrias (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Statistics at bottom of cricket articles

Are these really necessary? I feel a brief summary is more appropriate in most cases, as MOM/century tables and further jargon just lengthen the article and look particularly unsightly on FA/GAs. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say they can be over the top for modern players, as the team by team breakdowns can give 9 Test opponents and maybe 15 in ODIs, whereas for older players they often only need 5/6 rows. Same goes for the lack of MOM in the oldies, less centuries due to less matches and not-so-flat pitches. Bradman, Harvey and G Chappell aside, most of the other olden-day greats in the ACHOF have less than 15 centuries, and most less than 10. All the modern "greats" such as Border, S Waugh and Ponting have ~30+. A post-2000 debuting player might need 35 Test centuries to qualify as a borderline great nowadays with 20 people averaging 50+ in the last decade (how ridiculous). For older players it isn't a problem. Hassett, Ponsford, Woodfull, Hazare, Morris all have less than 10 Test tons. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• If it's any help, WP:MLB went through a long discussion over a similar issue which even came to a head in a mediation case. Staxringold _talk 06:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that Staxringold. Thanks for the links and for dropping in. :) Aaroncrick (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gilchrist

Can some take care of this? - as I've already reverted three times. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "one of the greatest" is fine at the moment, hopefully the IP won't attempt to remove "one of the" or change it to just "best" anymore. Crichool seems to have sprinkled his or her own vandalism in the way, but at the moment it reads "He is considered to be one of the greatest wicket-keeper-batsmen in the history of the game" - is that the version we are happy with? I personally prefer greatest to best anyway, because best just makes me think "bestest everset" and other such icky wording! SGGH 11:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's fine now. It was changed to: "He is considered as the best wicket-keeper-batsmen in the history of the game." Which I thought was a bit far.... Aaroncrick (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Hill

Hi,

I've created Arthur Hill (Australian cricketer), brother of Clem, 13 months after I found it needed creating! There is an Arthur Hill (cricketer), and I was planning to move it to Arthur Hill (English cricketer, but his CA profile suggests he goes by one of his middle names, thus Ledger Hill. Has anyone got any idea of another source for this, or where the article should be located?

Thanks,

—MDCollins (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He's Arthur Hill elsewhere on CA and throughout on CI. Ledger seems to have been a family name: his father and son both had it too. CMJ's magisterial Who's Who of Test Cricketers has him as an Arthur. Suggest Arthur Hill (cricketer) as a dab page and this one moves to Arthur Hill (English cricketer). Johnlp (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnlp. Harrias (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, per Johnlp and Harrias. Thanks —MDCollins (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ponting

Folks, what do we think should be done with the Ricky Ponting article? - as it is way too big at the moment. It's always probably going to be crickets biggest article because of his achievements and amount of matches, but, we need to do some trimming of of sections and perhaps create a sub-article. I was thinking something along the line of Captaincy career of Ricky Ponting, as most of the info is from when he became captain ODI in 2002. So what do we think? - and are there any other suggestions? Aaroncrick (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoax?

Tikkavarapu Venkatarami Reddy. Smells like one to me, can't find him on CI/CA. CSD G3? –SpacemanSpiff 08:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, added to Deccan article, too. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of AfD'ing it based on zero CA hits and zero cricket related google hits and zero cricinfo hits. SGGH 13:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tikkavarapu Venkatarami Reddy SGGH 13:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bennett King

Can an administrator please move Bennett King back over the redirect to Misplaced Pages space? The whole unreferenced BLP issue is starting to get out of control. Is it really that hard to follow policy? -- Mattinbgn\ 11:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I am merging the article back right now. Ikip 11:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the history of the Bennett King article is now only starting from the date it was incubated. Any way of fixing this? Jevansen (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who have lived under a rock for the past few days, this is just a result of some editors deciding that Unreferenced BLPs is evil and stuff the rules, lets delete them all. If you've missed the fun, be thankful. The Australian project is trying to ward off whatever solution the "consensus" comes up with by just clearing our decks of the 2000 odd unreferenced BLPs. I'd suggest that the cricket project one make up a similar page and do a similar referencing drive. Once I've done all of the AFL players, I'll help out too.The-Pope (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the best way of finding the cricket ones, or would it be a case of trawling through all the category pages? Harrias (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I used WP:AWB. Brief instructions are either on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australia/Unreferenced BLPs page or one of the noticeboard/talk pages linked from it. I can't do the cricket list now, but if it hasn't been done in a day or so I will do it then. I think WP:Football has a list almost 5000 articles long.The-Pope (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I used AWB too! List is now here Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket/Unreferenced BLPs, 300 odd articles isn't too bad! Harrias (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We used the Category intersect tool on WP India, at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject India/Unreferenced BLPs, we can probably use the same process for articles here. This is getting a little out of hand currently, I came across PRODs for Prime Ministers (I'm not kidding!) and an Olympic medallist deleted for being unreferenced. –SpacemanSpiff 17:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Instead of removing the names from the list, could we just add a status to the side (sourced / PRODded / AfD etc) and perhaps strike the article out? If nothing else, it'll give us an idea of this entire brouhaha was worth it. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A question, just how did articles like Dirk Wellham and Dipak Patel get tagged as "unreferenced"? Each article clearly gives at least source. Admittedly the source is not formatted as a reference but that is not a requirement, merely a preferred method of laying out sources. The articles are admittedly poorly sourced but they are not unreferenced. I propose removing these tags unless someone can convince me that I should not. -- Mattinbgn\ 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not the only case, just take a look at WP:IND/UBLP and you'll get an idea about the mistaggings in the small sample we've gone through. One article had 15 sources including 5 inline cites and was tagged as unsourced BLP, and then ones where the death date is on the article have been tagged as unsourced BLP too! –SpacemanSpiff 23:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well all this stuff isn't likely to achieve much except get a load of bogusly-reffed articles and most POv/negative content comes in by people taking speculation from a source as bald fact, or ismply synthesising, and frankly, they aren't going to check the ref anyway, so it's pointless rambling on their part YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BLPs

Hello all. Is there a list of this WikiProject's unreferenced BLPs? Best would be if it were in date order, ie how long ago it was created or tagged. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

From a few days ago, User:Harrias made up Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket/Unreferenced BLPs - but it isn't by tagged date, just alphabetical, otherwise you could sign up the project to User:WolterBot/Cleanup_listing_subscription, but that only runs about once a month based on the database dumps. If you can use WP:AWB or the catscan tool (link on my user page), you can make up your own intersections of pages/cats etc.The-Pope (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There's also the discussion right above this. –SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Vincent Barnes

That's an unbelievable bowling average and S/R for someone who played this side of 1975, isn't it? What was that about? SGGH 17:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He played most of his matches in the Howa Bowl, as far as I know. Low scoring was common so I imagine most of the bowlers had low averages.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Our text includes this: "Although the matches hadn't been given first-class status at the time, the UCB requested them to be and record were amended to include the 216 Howa Bowl matches as well as 7 other representative matches between 'non white' teams." This seems a poor, and politically-motivated decision by the ICC. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, especially given some of the matches of a much higher standard that don't have first-class status. To be frank, the entire first-class record needs a re-think and should be completely rewritten. I'm still none the wiser as to why Smokers v Non-Smokers matches from the 19th Century deserve first-class status! Andrew nixon (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Very possibly true, but was it not an even more politically motivated decision that the cricketers in this competition were not permitted to play "official" first-class cricket in SA at the time, hence the creation of the competition? Also, if we are judging the quality of cricket by the scores, I understand from the Wisden article referenced in the Howa Bowl article that the pitches were very poor, leading to low scores.--Sarastro1 (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, and of course the pitches were poor precisely because of the "non-whites" nature of the competition. Scores could have been much higher had it had the access to the same grounds that the "whites only" competition had. I think Barnes just happens to be the player affected most by the decision to make these games first-class - without them I think he played just a handful of FC games. It also affected some other more notable players - Basil D'Oliveria had three or four games added to his stats by the decision. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

James Miller (cricketer)

This guy had a prod tag slapped on him when I checked my messages just now. I'm not around very often these days, but this one could end up going on AfD. Bobo. 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Put a couple of refs in and removed unref'd BLP tag. Johnlp (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

South African flags in articles.

When reviewing List of international cricket centuries by Donald Bradman at FLC, I noticed that it used the modern South African flag. However, Bradman would have played against the apartheid state not the modern one. Considering how important their treatment of Basil D'Oliviera was to the sporting boycott, I think it is important to get straight which matches were played by apartheid South Africa and which by the modern side and use the appropriate flag.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this before and the rainbow era flag is everywhere, and we were going to change to the modern infobox that doesn't use flags to avoid the problem of players who played under two flags or a regime change, but it hasn't been done yet; an infobox would be nice. Also, there is some legal controversy as to when the Australian flag became the national flag, because according to some, the Australian flag was not the national flag until the Flags Act of 1953 because the Union Jack was still the official flag...although I know that the Aus flag was carried at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Not to mention that Australia wasn't a coutnry before 1901. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Australia doesn't strike me as so controversial especially if both were in some degree of official use. It's a big job to fix everywhere. However, when it comes especially to featured content, we really should do our best to get even the nitpicky things right.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack

What happened here? Was anyone on the project aware of this? Andrew nixon (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's crazy SGGH 11:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, he's been indef blocked because one of his undeclared socks participated in AfDs. Policy does appear to say that one shouldn't do this, but it seems a technical breach of policy, rather than an abusive use of socks (eg block evasion), or disruption in a way that would justify indef blocking. Unless I've missed something, a warning would seem to be more appropriate than an indef. I'll have a chat with the checkuser. --Dweller (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Though why would he have any alternate accounts? SGGH 11:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

He was involved in that dispute with a user about self-referencing a while ago, but I hope the indef block means blocked until he gives his reasons or apologises and promises to never do it again. Hope it's just a case of his relative/housemate sharing a computer than anything more sinister. As for the editor who reported him, is using an IP address considered a sockpuppet in itself, or is that sort of disguise allowed?The-Pope (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly legitimate not to create a username, and I do know of very regular (and well known and respected) editors who only use an IP address. However it is very unusual to find a regular editor who is informed enough to file SPI requests who doesn't have a username. But there is no policy against it. SGGH 12:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just on a quick check, the IP address that submitted the evidence has no previous edits. Seems very bizarre, especially given that all that was posted on the discussion after the initial evidence on 3 January was a query regarding policy. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

True. Perhaps it was an editor wishing to be anonymous, or at a different work station. SGGH 14:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just read the investigation, and the editor who reported him seems very knowledgable about Blackjack's arguments with User:HughGal, and "Doctor Tillman". This person has been blocked himself as a sockpuppet. It all seems tied up to a dispute that has been going on for a long time, and it could probably do with untangling. HughGal has used lots of IP addresses before, some of which are blocked. BJ also complained about HughGal (over the Verity article) on 3 Jan 2010, when the report was made. All the editors mentioned seem to tie up somehow. It could do to be looked at very closely.--Sarastro1 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

BJ has explained it here.–SpacemanSpiff 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that BlackJack was not informed that he was "on trial" until after sentence was passed and his editing rights withdrawn. That stinks. JH (talk page) 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing stinks. Something is definitely a bit fishy about the entire situation. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The way BJ's external disputes have drifted into WP may often have been irritating, but his energy has never been in doubt and his contribution to the cricket articles is huge and irreplaceable. How can the project as a whole justify treating one of its most prolific contributors in such an unfair way on the say-so of someone who can't even be bothered to identify themselves? Johnlp (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think it's compulsory to notify people that they have been accused; that has been abused here. To have BJ blocked for this feels wrong. It seems to me that the Orrelly Man account was a legitimate use of an alternative account to escape what is effectively stalking. Ten votes in AfDs does not warrant a block. Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Orrelly Man's AfD votes, I'm left wondering where the abuse is and how they were disruptive. If they weren't, where was the point in the block?

1. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Game events: result was delete, Orrelly Man voted delete
2. two comments on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kolkata Test Match 2001 Ind vs Australia but no votes
3. started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gaming Response Research Foundation which resulted in a deletion; voted delete in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trashball which resulted in deletion
4. started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Game (simulation) which resulted in keep but is a terrible article
5. started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Glenrothes cricket club the result of which was delete
6. started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catholic Conference (MIAA) which resulted in keep but a school football league doesn't seem notable and I'm not sure how it survived. Maybe worth looking at again (note: Pastor Theo (talk · contribs) who voted in it was later revealed as a sock of a banned user).
7. started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Major League Softball Association the result of which was delete
8. started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zugball the result of which was delete
9. started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Games on ice the result of which was delete
10. started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Glenrothes cricket club the result of which was delete
11. voted keep at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2059 (2nd nomination) the result of which was keep

That's a pretty decent strike rate. Regarding this discussion, BlackJack didn't say what he thought on the subject, and what is wrong with this? Also, WP:ILLEGIT just says that "Voting more than once in polls" is not allowed, which did not happen. The IP who filed the investigation misrepresented the case. Nev1 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The blocking admin has commented on the situation. Nev1 (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I admit I still don't know why he had so many alternate accounts. Surely even if you are escaping harassment you only need one. SGGH 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I think. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And if the block is going to be shortened BJ needs to fill in this information first. SGGH 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

West Indies flag

It is asserted here that the West Indies Cricket Board flag is copyrighted. I agree that it probably is, which means that the image will be removed from Commons. In that case, it should be re-uploaded here for fair-use on the WICB article (only!) and we will have to remove it from every other article. {{cr|West Indies}} can remain, but a null transparent placeholder will be rendered instead (like {{cr|Ireland}}). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

sub-discussion about Ireland flag

Note, of course, that the Cricket Ireland flag isn't actually copyrighted. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can source that, then we can restore an image. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it actually possible to source something like that? Showing that something IS copyrighted is incredibly simple in most cases - it is usually marked as copyrighted. But the reverse? I'm not so sure. I know the Cricket Ireland media manager personally, but he doesn't see the point in contacting Misplaced Pages in what ever way he needs to just to confirm what to him is already obvious. And I agree with him. The flag isn't copyrighted, end of story - or at least it should be, but the increasingly bureaucratic nature of Misplaced Pages prevents it from being. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have signed and ratified the Berne Convention, so copyright on the logo (and derivative flag) is automatic. Yes, that is incredibly simple: it is copyrighted by default. But it is also incredibly simple to show that something is not copyrighted—there would be an explicit license (e.g. statement placing the creative work in the public domain, or perhaps a Creative Commons license) from the original creator of the work. So unless we have that, the default condition applies. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The cricket quiz...

...doyen of all WP quizzes, is in danger of expiring through lack of questions (and people to answer). Johnlp (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists