User talk:Blue Square Thing/Archive 10

All okay?

Noticed you have blanked and deleted your userpage. Hope is all well. StickyWicket (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just about to ask the same thing. I could have sworn your userpage was blue and not red before! Take care. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather odd. Cheers, --WellThisIsTheReaper 23:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Was going to drop you an email, but you don't have that preference setup. Hope all is OK and you're just enjoying the real world before the domestic season starts in England. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all three of you - appreciate the notes. You're pretty much right, I really need a break and the sun is out. I don't know how long I'll be but the start of the season is a good benchmark in my mind, although I may pop by before then, it depends. Just came back to post the finished 1861 to 1870 list - AA you might want to go through and double check perhaps. Hope you're all well. The userpages needed clearing out for lots of different reasons - I'm sure you can imagine or figure it out. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear you're OK. Yes - enjoy that rare British treat of the sun while you can! Take care. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey BST, why are you not responding to the string of issues raised against you? Is the timing of your taking break from Wikipedia and the complaint against you a mere co-incidence? I really didn't know that you are so cow-hearted that you would bow down to us, to the issues by ceasing to editing in Wikipedia rather than by taking part in the discussion like an audacious. Shame on you.

Michri michri (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: BST is taking a break from the world of Wikipedia for the time being. Also, please keep your "comments" to yourself as part of WP:NPA. Cheers, --WellThisIsTheReaper 21:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

BST: take your time, but just in case you didn't notice, the idiot above has been blocked (though given their history I guess they'll be back soon). Best wishes. Spike 'em (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice to hear you're okay. That "my dear" clown has been blocked. StickyWicket (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The season starts this week, and with time away from here I feel I'm no longer in danger of getting sucked down rabbit holes and my watch list has been cut down to a manageable level. Thanks to everyone who said such nice things - both here and at ANI. I appreciate it and if you can get to a Kent match let me know: I owe you a pint. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Ahh-ha! Who is this showing up on my watchlist?! Good to see you back. Take care. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it must be nearly the start of the season when it started to snow... Hope you're well and not getting too bogged down with "stuff". Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

All of you are clowns and idiots. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.227 (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought the Shami fan club was blocked. Spike 'em (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Spike 'em (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC), I am unblockable. Have already created a couple of accounts after a couple getting blocked. Btw, what's your favourite IPL team, my dear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.124 (talk)

arcseconds

As it happens, the difference of an arcsecond in coordinates is about 20 metres, not, as you say, a 35mm film canister. WP:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision guidelines, which I don't entirely agree with, wants D°M′S″ for objects between 100m and 1000m. Abductive (reasoning) 09:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I will try to remember to reply to this properly, but I don't have time to do so today. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So, this is really interesting. When I used the mapping tool, the deg-min-sec coords produced digital coords in Google Maps to 6 dp - which gives you, obviously, a massive level of precision - I guess to about 10cm. I regularly find 35mm film cans in hedges with less precision than that! But it's all about how G Maps translates it - which I didn't realise. When you do the same with the decimal coords to 3dp it gives you 1 dp in the seconds - which is about 3 metre precision, despite digital 3dp coords equating to c.100 metres precision. All of which is super technical and quite interesting for me, but it doesn't matter too much for the use on the page. But I've learned something from it. Overall I guess I simply prefer decimal coords if I'm honest - I don't think 3dp is too imprecise is it? My reckoning is that it equates to 100m precision, which seems more than good enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you care at all about coordinates is already unusual for a Wikipedia editor. Most users don't even check to see if the coordinates even strike the object. I've found more than one naval battle that was pointed to dry land. Abductive (reasoning) 20:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, or the village that seems to be in the next county eh? Blame looking for film containers - not that I look for those anymore; I'm a bit pickier about my tupperware these days. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Lists of centuries

There was in fact no consensus on the removal of tables. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 84#Request for comment on achievements and awards boxes, which is linked from WP:CRICSTYLE. I consulted both of those pages before reverting your edits.

As for the particular tables you removed, they are not list cruft. They are both, and are both no more than, lists of international centuries scored by well known women cricketers each of whom scored at least three such centuries. As such, they are no different from, eg, the tables of performances in Grand Slam tournaments in articles about well known women tennis players (eg Martina Navratilova), or the tables of performances in Grands Prix and other major international car races by well known race car drivers (eg Niki Lauda), or even lesser known international drivers (eg, relevantly, Jamie Chadwick).

An international century, and even more so a bag of multiple international centuries, has been accepted for more than a century as a benchmark for excellence in batting, and for nearly a century as a benchmark for women cricketers. Consistently with that fact, Wikipedia has lots of list articles containing nothing more than such tables, including multiple flags in respect of each century, for male cricketers. To remove the smaller and less prominent tables, or even the flags, from articles about well known women cricketers is sex discrimination.

Finally, I don't understand what you mean about context. Mandhana is a longstanding international cricketer. She is a specialist batter, and vice captain of India's WT20I team. She has scored the centuries mentioned in the infobox of her article. The table simply lists them, in similar format to the separate list articles for male cricketers. An international century, and even more so a bag of multiple international centuries, has been accepted for more than a century as a benchmark for excellence in batting. What further context could possibly be required, when no equivalent further context is expected or provided in relation to equivalent tables in articles about tennis players or race car drivers? Frankly, any such further context would just be 'prose cruft' that would add nothing to the table.

In any event, context was an issue in the archived discussion, and I repeat that it ended in "no consensus". The tables you removed were modelled exactly on tables that have been part of the Meg Lanning article for a long time, and there is no justification for removing any of the tables. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I already added my comments on this to your talk page actually - perhaps we crossed wires here. My take on the RfC - the closure further down the page you linked to - was that swathes of numbers or lists of awards, empty of content or context, are not appropriate for Wikipedia, and that where sections for achievements/awards are included, they should be more than just a basic list, being a means to expand and add value to the article. In both of the cases where you've reverted my edits there is no context - i.e. some introductory comments which add value to the table and put it in context. So, for example, the Career best performances section at Sam Billings has context. The international centuries section as Wally Hammond has context.

I'll repeat my suggestion that you open a new discussion at the cricket wiki project and we see where we get to. I'll also repeat that there are obvious issues with the use of flags and over links in the tables you've reverted - as well some other stylistic problems and the accessibility related issue of forcing column widths in tables. Those need to be addressed when you add the 2-3 sentences of context needed to those articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Minor League Cricket

Hey, BST! At 2021 Minor League Cricket season you mentioned that the dates on the scorecards needed changing. Any clarification on that statement would be nice, so I can fix it. Cheers! WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 21:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry - can see how that's unclear. What I mean is that really they should all use American dating methods - i.e. month-day-year. I don't think it's as important to do that as it is to do it in the prose - and I noticed that one of the other articles has all the dates as d-m-y - but there are strong national ties to preferring that. There's just a lot of scorecards to change and, as far as I can see, no quick way to do them. Does that make sense? It's really not that big a deal - the sort of job to save for a rainy day when nothing but geeking around with fields in templates will do... Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

To add: I'm not sure that the quarter-finals are quite organised the way I'd do it. I think we need to be looking more towards the way that baseball playoffs are - where it's a best of X deal. So doesn't it make sense to group the games by playoff rather than by date? Like at 2021 American League Division Series? Although I'm not sure how that would work - maybe there's a case for using collapsible scorecards even for these? I like the use of collapsible elements elsewhere on the articles btw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry for the late reply, I was off yesterday so I didn’t see this. Yes, I did use d-m-y for the scorecards as I believe that it looks nicer, and it is just more organized (although that is just my personal opinion). And, yes, although it isn’t really needed, I can change the dates to m-d-y as something of a pass-time project. As for the quarter-final problem, I personally believe that MiLC and MLB are two different leagues and so thus they should have different prospects and structure. But, I do feel that the scorecards for the quarter-finals are a bit excessive and long, so I can definitely add in a collapsible element to help with that. Oh, also, thanks for the reply! Cheers, --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 19:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you - I just got a bit confused when I was trying to work out who progressed from the quarters. Wrt the scorecard dates, I mean, it doesn't matter really, so long as we're consistent in the prose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Alfred Hollings

I think there should be more on his legal career as the firm Hollings Partners in Wellington rings a bell. Not sure how much info on his time in the Air Force there will be. No 19 squadron was a fighter squadron and it looks like he was base personel. I have pretty much exhausted Google and Papers Past.NealeWellington (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that these are probably him:

• 1943 pilot officer
• 1944 discharge

Best to use the search function. Does that tie in? I seem to recall finding a notice in a newspaper about him being back in Wellington and back at law from 44, so that would fit in I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hi BST. This is for your excellent work in helping expand the article for Alfred Hollings and save it from deletion. Thank you! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I found him really interesting. Probably more to add as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you again for the work you've put into it - his bio is a nice read. I think it's par for the course that many NZ/Aus cricketers who played less than a dozen of so matches of that time period had much more interesting lives outside of their cricketing one! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I was rather surprised he didn't turn up playing rugby somewhere actually, although perhaps that's more a thing in Dunedin than in Wellington. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverts

You reverted an edit of mine on Charles Harenc just now, and I see that you also reverted a related edit on William Knatchbull-Hugessen a while ago, for related reasons.

I would say that, from the point of view of the reader who wishes to check a reference, it is preferable to go to s:Alumni Oxonienses: the Members of the University of Oxford, 1715-1886/Harenc, Charles Joseph, rather than to the underlying Alumni Oxonienses page. It's a typical Victorian double-column book, with around 40 biographies per page. There is a gain in legibility and convenience; and the original is accessible via the page number link on the left.

I have occasionally met arguments against use of citation templates; but not very often these days. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is a little complex and covers a range of issues. And it's made me think about my view on this. Partly it's a use of templates on a page which doesn't - which has CITEVAR sorts of issues associated with it (I am, fwiw, one of the people who mat still make an argument about the use of templates; this is partly because I've never felt they have any advantage over hand-made referencing). Partly it's that it removes information from the reference - the date of publication of the volume, the volume number and the page for example. Partly it's because it disrupts the reference style - so, for example, all of the other references on both of those pages use Surname Initials (date) style, rather than Surname, Forename.

Partly as well the use of wikisource is taking the information out of context - so, for example, if you view the original source for Harenc, his brother is listed immediately underneath him. If you view it for Hugessen you find seven Hugessen's, including five with Knatchbull in their name. And, iirc, all from the same part of the world. To me, there's some value in being able to see the source in that context rather than presenting simply the information about the individual. I'm about to add a little to the note about Henry Harenc that we have simply because I saw the additional detail there.

But it's also useful to have just the information about the individual, and to have it in a format which allows for the text to be copied and pasted more easily. So I've added the additional option of viewing the information on Wikisource to both references. This strikes me as allowing the concerns I have about reference style, context and so on to be addressed whilst at the same time providing the information in an easy to follow format. I appreciate that this makes things a little more complex, but I don't imagine there are a tonne of articles that I edit which are likely to cross over and some of those pages will already use templates so significant parts of my argument are redundant.

Thank you, by the way, for making me think. That's usually a good thing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Where is consensus on indic scripts in Template:Infobox cricketer?

Hey, I saw this edit you made, for which you mentioned that the infobox documentation recommends against including alternate languages (for the name, presumably). I looked at {{Infobox cricketer}} and couldn't find any mention of guidelines on languages. I'm curious where exactly the subject is covered. Could you edify me on this matter? I'm aware of two consensus documents that are tangentially related: WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, which applies only to India-related articles (Muttiah Muralitharan is Sri Lankan), and WP:Naming conventions (Indic), which I read as proscribing honorifics and recommending a primary transliteration, without mention of avoiding additional indic scripts. – Anon423 (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The name field specifies "Player's commonly used 'cricket' name".

I'd add that the Muralitharan article, with I think three different languages being used to provide alternative names in the lead sentence, pretty much typifies the problem that NOINDIC was addressing. I'm also fairly certain that the Modern names and usage section of WP:Naming conventions (Indic) would apply here - "Personal, organisation, and company names in current and recent usage should generally be romanized according to the nameholder's preference, if that can be established"; I don't see a reason under either of the bullet points to include any additional script at all actually - the Preferred format for introducing the article subject section of the naming convention suggests that additional scripts should only be used in the lead when the requirements are met; I don't think they are fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"the Preferred format for introducing the article subject section of the naming convention suggests that additional scripts should only be used in the lead when the requirements are met" – What are these requirements, specifically? Maybe I'm failing just failing at reading comprehension, but it's unclear to me what exactly the rule is for including one or more Indic script versions of the name.

On another note, while WP:NOINDICSCRIPT specifically limits itself to India and excludes "any of India's neighbouring countries", I don't see why in particular this linked RFC should be taken as limited to India only. I think the reasoning should apply anywhere the problem of multiple scripts arises, with its usual stirrings of ethno-nationalist edit warring. – Anon423 (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

On the second point, I wasn't aware of the specifics of that RfC. I *think* it's suggesting no additional scripts in the majority of infoboxes - is that how you read it? It might be helpful in terms of cricketers to open a discussion at the infobox talk page to clarify things and then update the documentation as required - there are some bits of it that probably need updating anyway.

On the first point, I'm thinking of the scope section of WP:NCIN, in particular the "subject matter covered" and "modern names and terms". I'm fairly certain the subject matter section doesn't include the personal names of cricketers; and in the modern names section, I wonder in how many cases there's a need to either transliterate or to indicate original pronunciation? This would be the only grey area for me, but given that cricketers are covered in fairly good depth in English language media I'm not sure that there is a need, is there? Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

With apologies for opening an old thread, yes, I think we should start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox cricketer to clarify, with intent to update the documentation on the matter (specifically, to recommend against indic scripts in general). That seems to be in accord with the reasoning at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Modern_names_and_terms, as well as extrapolating Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive_64#RfC on Indicscript in infoboxes to Indicscripts anywhere on Wikipedia where they aren't necessary in order to avoid clutter and edit wars.

Meanwhile, Muttiah Muralitharan currently has three different Indic script translations of his name in the first sentence, which is a bit cluttered in my opinion, but I'm happy as long as it's stable and people aren't fighting over it. – Anon423 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I agree, btw, that the Muralitharan article is clearly exemplifying the same problem that led to NOINDICSCRIPT being put in place. I'd argue that there's a logical case for it's extension - and there does seem to be, fwiw, a history of people mucking around with the order of the names. I'm about to remove the Malayalam version on the grounds that it's an indic script, not a sri lankan one... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi BST - hope you are well. Thank you for your comments on my talkpage yesterday. Although you did jinx it with "None of the cricketer articles which have been nominated recently" with three popping up since then. Ha! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I'm glad you're back - stick around: we need you! I'll check the del sort later... Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks again for your excellent work in the recent AfD articles. If you have a moment, please would you be able to double-check the infobox of this article, with relation to the year spans for his clubs and the other i/b fixes you're more knowledgeable about. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Done - I think that's the best option here. The multiple sides they have in SA and elsewhere makes things a little harder sometimes. Sad story there and not one I was aware of. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, thank you. Wasn't too sure about the Cricket Archive link in the ex. links section, but I'd used it to source his domestic team spans. Yes, I only came across the info when looking at the latest obits in Wisden. Sad indeed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I tend to remove CA by default as an XL, but it's incredibly useful to have as a ref. Nothing wrong with using it to source the infobox directly - CI is fine as an XL and in lots of cases I think that's a fairly good solution (particularly for women cricketers where CI doesn't have the detail. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi there. When cleaning up articles, please be sure not to remove content from the main body as you did here. While I'm aware cricketer biographies in general fail comprehensively in this regard, per H:IB, information contained in the infobox should still be present in the main text. Regards, _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm coming across an absolute tonne of MOSBIO issues with these. Those need dealing with quite quickly I'm afraid - so in many cases I won't have time to take the content and repurpose it. In general the ones I'm dealing with just now are, in the main, hugely stubby and need hours of work. I'm simply cleaning up so that we get rid of the MOS issues first. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but MOS issues such as these are not such a priority that they need to be dealt with quickly. Indeed, they would only ever become a more pressing issue if the articles were nominated for GA (for example), in which case the content you are removing would need to be in the main text anyway. Please take more time and endeavour to retain the content. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue strongly that leaving MOSBIO issues in place creates a much bigger problem (and that MOSBIO is much more important a guidelines than H:IB fwiw, but whatever) - people copy what they see. If we leave all these MOS issues in place (like piping ODI, linking countries, OLINKing etc...) then other people come along and copy the bad form. That exacerbates the problem. Having a place of birth missing from the article - especially when we're talking very poor stubs created a very long time ago and effectively abandoned - really isn't a bit deal here in my view. But I'll see what I can do - this is the list I'm currently working through. Got most of the first 100 done - only another 230 to go after that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

To be clear. None of the issues you are "fixing" are more important than content. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure. But they’re achievable which is jolly good for my mental health Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Darren Stevens

Hi blue squre thing.What was wrong with my edit ? I just linked all-rounder. Floaty.flamingo (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought you'd moved the first-class cricket bit a little? I missed the link to all-rounder, which is fine and thanks for adding it back in. The problem was that when you write "He has scored over 16,000 runs and since the age of 35 has taken over 500 wickets and 31 five-wicket hauls in first-class cricket." it doesn't qualify that the 16,000 are in first-class cricket - he's scored another 11,000+ in one-day matches. So the original "In first-class cricket he has scored over 16,000 runs and since the age of 35 has taken over 500 wickets and 31 five-wicket hauls." retains that qualification. If you can fine a better way of keeping the qualification in place then by all means go ahead. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh , I see. Thanks. Floaty.flamingo (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

William Priest

Another thank you for a great editing job to save an article from deletion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you sharing that pavlova? :-) I noticed you might have a recent Wisden btw. Do you have any from the 2015-2018 period at all? I could use checking something... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Billy Mead

Thank you for creating the page for Billy Mead. I hope my edits and comments made sense. I am close to him and know his history in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrickMam (talk • contribs) 10:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@CrickMam: Thanks for explaining that. You'll notice that Spike 'em has undone your change also - under WP:COI concerns (which you should make sure you read please. Is there anything that you can point us in the direction of the stuff you put in the edit summary written down? The refs I've used in the article are the only ones I can find, although I've added a caveat based on an assumption that a Yearlings team is a lower age group side - can you confirm that? I'll drop a note on your user page to direct you here as well, although you might have seen the ping note as well.

Other than that, is there anything in the article that's flat out wrong? It was a little tricky to find enough detail, but I think I got enough. I'm sure there are things missed out, but, again, we'd want sources if you can point us in their direction. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Atapattu

Three times you have removed content from Marvan Atapattu in direct contradiction of the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Marvan Atapattu. If you believe they are "stats without any context", please fix it by adding context but do not remove content. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I forgot that I had to be honest. I'll do the cleanup that someone else should have done when they moved the stuff across then. Thanks for reminding me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Turns out that both the information and the context was already in the article. It existed as prose. I've moved the tables up to the relevant section but arguably they simply bloat the article and should be deleted, perhaps with a short summary table of some kind. The merge was completed with the prose section in place and without the tables - this was a selective merge - on 11 February 2011. You might ant to check the article history next time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Now you mention it, I remember noticing the prose the last time you removed the tables. The irony in your closing remark is quite amusing. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your comment

This comment is spot on. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop&curid=71061109&diff=1094856316&oldid=1094852831&diffmode=source

I agree. But also if it was 100% clear, there would be no need to even discuss.

I appreciate your thoughtful contributions, sincerely. CT55555 (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. And, honestly, I'm really not sure that I understand any of the key ideas behind deletion and inclusion anymore, especially the ones which contradict each other. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Morning BST - hope you are well. Thanks for all your comments in this case and recent AfDs. I've not really looked at the Arbcom case until now - I've got some thoughts to add at some point. Could be in for the long haul with this! You're a level-headed editor, so hopefully you don't get stuck in the quagmire of all this. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

As well as can be expected given Kent's bowling yesterday :-) I really can't figure out which way the Arbcom stuff is headed at all - but it seems to have gone way off a narrow scope on individuals. But I really don't know too much about how it works tbh. It does seem to me though that the whole thing boils down to arguments caused by different interpretations of what policies and guidelines mean, which policies and guidelines to weigh in different ways and how there seems to be a belief sometimes that there's only one way of interpreting a guideline or policy. I mean, it's not as if, say, nine experienced and intelligent experts in their field can't come to very different interpretations of a 200-year old guideline in the real world. Regularly. Yet on Wikipedia it seems appropriate to be told that your own interpretation of a guideline is simply wrong. Anyway, hope it doesn't get too unpleasant - I must take a look again at it at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Henham

For the record Henham, Suffolk now exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I'll see if there's anything I can add at some point perhaps. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

AfD

Morning BST - hope you are well. Per your comment in this AfD - if you're able to create even the most basic skeleton/stub list for this, I'd be happy to complete the names from CA. Let me know if that's possible. Here is the list from CA to get the ball rolling. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: is done at List of Uttarakhand cricketers - part way through names but the escape key is proving problematic... Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

And done as much as I can. A couple I can't find articles for and some you might want to check the names on as they redirect - it's the right bloke each time. Hope you're fine. I'll see if I can get that e-mail thing working at some point this week maybe. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

And I think I now have it enabled. If you want to use it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Kent County Cricketers A to Z

You seem to have uncovered a real treasure trove there. I was inspired to look up its article on Gerry Weigall, and it's a very entertaining read. JH (talk page) 15:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Derek is a fine amateur historian and there was plenty of help from Howard Milton and so on iirc. And it gives is a decent prose source for everyone who played between 1806 and 1939, which given that anything without a prose source is liable to deletion, quite possibly without being taken an AfD, seemed like a plan. I'm glad you enjoyed it - I seem to recall that the one on Leslie Todd is a good read as well. For now I've only added it without doing too much more: Weigall is certainly one where the article needs some work iirc - there's obviously plenty in lots of other places and I think he appears in Paul Lewis' WWI book as well, which is on the shelf behind me. When I get the chance... Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Email

Please send me an email and I will pass on Neil's contact details. Library access is available through appointment so he will be happy to host you. I'm going to need to drop my anonymity between us and I think you will need to do so as well as it will be odd to tell him I don't know your identity. I hope that is OK? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with that - I'll drop the e-mail in later on. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi,thanks for the message. I have replied. Good luck Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Words

I don't think you have quite the right word in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale#Proposed issue 14: an absolutionist approach is unhelpful.

Absolution is a kind of ritual forgiveness. Did you mean absolutist? Or maybe completionist, which is used to describe collectors who want a complete set of whatever they're collecting? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Almost certainly - thank you. I'll change it just now... Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

George Bell (Lancs)

Hiya, thanks for getting in touch I appreciate it. If you could let me know the factual errors so I can try and work out what went wrong in my process (other than staying up too late watching the NFL). I appreciate you might not have the time or inclination and won’t judge either way haha. But if it’s easier email me guy.fraser@me.com cheers Guy Hildreth gazzard (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Edward Aburrow Sr

You have mentioned in an edit summary that "the speculative nature also needs addressing" but you have not placed any citation needed or query tags. Alternatively, you could outline on the article's talk page what you think should be addressed. All statements in the article are reliably sourced but if there are certain words you think should be removed or amended, please go ahead and edit them. Thanks for reminding me about columns = 0 (I did know but obviously forgot). I wasn't aware that using a non-specific source will cause an infobox error, though. Where is that flagged up? BoJó | talk UTC 10:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I found the source flag. Thanks. BoJó | talk UTC 13:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Cardiff Arms Park

You have previously edited Cardiff Arms Park. An editor has decided to split the article (yet again). I would like to know your view on the new edit....see Talk:Cardiff_Arms_Park#Article_Split_(again). SethWhales ^talk 20:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Cardiff Arms Park - a decision

A decision needs to be made on whether or not to split Cardiff Arms Park - To split or not to split. There are two options which have been agreed. SethWhales ^talk 16:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Mominul Haque

BS Thing. Hi. In four edits you say written English to imply Mominul's article was badly written. You also say about getting basics right being a good idea, trying to be sarcastic it would seem. I am sorry but when your version of the article contains the extracts listed below you have no right at all to call any person out for written English reasoning. My English is not good. I admit that. It is a second language but I would not make the sort of errors I have listed here after your inputs.

• His made his List A cricket debut done

• After making his Twenty20 cricket debut - this seems fine to me - it makes sense

• He has since played in the competition for five of the eight franchises to have competed in the competition. done - thanks

• In 2013–14 he scored 129 runs, batting alongside Roshen Silva to set a new highest fourth wicket partnership in List A cricket, the pair scoring 276 runs playing for Prime Doleshwar Sporting Club against Abahani Limited in a Dhaka Premier Division match. As of December 2022 this remains the highest fourth wicket partnership in any List A cricket match. - this is OK, although the sentence is long and unwieldy. There may be a way to split it, not sure.

• both his One Day International (ODI) and Twenty20 (T20) debut done, but this was an existing error I think; fwiw...

• three innings at a batting average of 52.00 - this is OK, unless you think it needs a comma after the innings?

• Mominul scored his fourth Test century, against at Chittagong done; that'll be auto-correct...

• After a half-century in the side's tour of New Zealand in early 2017,[13] he struggled for form and was dropped from the squad ahead of Australia's tour of Bangladesh in August. Twenty-four hours later he was recalled for the first Test. done; I think

I hadn't got to any of the stuff below here before you listed it. I **think** I've dealt with all of it, and checked for any other errors, but if you could cast your eyes over it it'd really help

• (heading) first stint as captain versus India (2020)

• The second test match at Eden Gardens was the first ever Day/night test match played by both team and Mominul became Bangladesh's first captain in Day/night test match.

• Bangladesh lost both test match by innings margin and lost the series by 2–0 margin.

• which is Bangladesh's first test win under his captaincy as well as it was their only second test match win by innings margin.

• He also score 132 runs in their innings which was his first century as captain and equalling Tamim Iqbal's record of scoring nine centuries, the most by Bangladeshi batsmen in test cricket.

• In the series most of the regular West Indian players, including regular captains, withdrawn their names for health security issues

• Kyle Mayers's 210*, which was highest individual score by any batsman in the fourth inning of test debut.

• West Indies clean swept the series by 2–0, which was their first test series win Bangladesh since 2011.

Last, I would quote you saying without any attempt whatsoever to place it in any form of context as you remove a perfectly good table. The table has a heading which is telling the reader that it is Test centuries scored by Mominul Haque. That is the context. Add some respectful text if you wish but the heading provides the context and no more than that is necessary to explain it. Maybe you focus on getting basics right instead of trying to belittle other editors with silly words like utterly and whatsoever?

Giving credit where due, on the other hand, I thank you at least for correct use of Mominul's name. 92.31.5.236 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic at all and the written English point wasn't in any way a criticism - as you suggest, English isn't necessarily the first language of everyone editing article and I often find that I need to work on these aspects. That's OK, I never mind doing that. My apologies if the simply factual edit summary came across the wrong way. I'll review the list you've suggested, but I'm not sure which parts are a problem - some of them at least look OK - but then I don't think I'd finished when you put them here and I know not all of them are my edits; I'll review. But then I make all sorts of errors myself when writing English - I try to go back and copy edit once I'm done, which I'm about to do.

What we can't have though - and we had a long discussion over this several years ago - is tables filling up articles without context. We simply met have that - and have reached a consensus that there must be context. I was considering whether, now that I'm sort of done, there's a place for replacing the table - the problem is that most of the centuries seem to have been covered in prose already and I'm not sure if they'd belong in a separate table or not. Do you have any thoughts on how we might do this? I'm also intending to replace the captaincy table, but in a more suitable place.

You're right though, my first couple of edit summaries were probably a little intemperate. I apologise for that - but they weren't in any way attempting to belittle anyone. Of that I'm sure. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I think I've worked through these. Unless you can expand on the couple I've not dealt with, I think they're OK.

Perhaps you can help me. In general, all Bangladeshi male first names will be used rather than second names, yes? Does that include any versions of Mohammad? (assuming this is used as a second name in Bangladesh - I'm sorry, but I really can't remember if it is or not). Does this apply to women's names as well? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest looking at Bangla Ladies and Bangla Men M. Wisden, Playfair and other lists use same indexing method so Mominul Haque is listed under M not H. Mohammed is rarely second name in Bangla but in Pakistan it is common and Hanif Mohammed is under H.

Nomination for deletion of Template:2016–17 Regional Super50 Group A

Template:2016–17 Regional Super50 Group A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)