User talk:BlackJack/Archive 8

Hello, nice to see you're back. Just a quick note about the two photos in the Wilfred Rhodes article. I notice you uploaded them last year. The article will be going up for FAC shortly, hopefully, and a question came up about the images. Where did they come from? If you have a reference for them, could you let me know. If not, I can probably find both of them in a book somewhere, but I was hoping you might have them in an older book than I've got. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see reply at Sarastro's talk page. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 12:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack, my first reaction was to smile because I have no idea what you are talking about, which to me reflects both my ignorance and your ability to maintain decorum even when faced with adversity, which is as much a testament to your calm composure as your well thought out apology. Had you handled the situation anything less than admirably I probably would have noticed. :) SGGH ^ping! 14:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack, your ANI has been added to by an IP that I reckon is related to the suspected sock you are reporting. SGGH ^ping! 18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you really had no reason to apologise. I never once suspected you meant me, and I'm pretty thick-skinned about most things anyway. Kind of flattering in a way, that someone might think I could be that creative... Sadly, or perhaps fortunately, I'm not. Johnlp (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite all right, John. You are creative in a positively creative way. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolving myself from this whole ANI/IP/SPI thing now, because (as I've put at the ANI thread) I believe as you do that there is a socking issue with this IP which relates to either RichardDraft or Hamshirecricketfan. I can't remain objective any more. You might want to consider adding them to the SPI unless you know something I don't. My two cents. SGGH ^ping! 18:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack, you might remember me as the one who blocked User:JamesJJames. Hope there are no hard feelings over that, I totally support your "fresh start" here. I just wanted to offer you some advice for the future in regards to Mr. IP, whoever he is.

Anonymous editors have a different standing at Wikipedia than registered editors. Wikipedia calls itself the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit, and to a degree that's true. There's an effort to welcome productive edits from any editor, and anonymous editors are supposed to be on equal footing as everyone else. For practical reasons, however, they aren't.

IP editors have more restrictions than registered editors. They can't create articles, their opinions are given less weight or none at all at Articles for Deletion discussions, they aren't allowed to have a "vote" at Requests for Adminship, they are restricted from editing any semi-protected page. IPs change, so it's difficult for an IP to have a solid "track record" of contributions to the project.

But they also have certain freedoms that registered editors don't have. An IP can be shed like a piece of clothing, and an IP that's blocked from editing can usually pick up a different IP without much time or trouble if they have a shred of technical know-how. IPs can claim plausible deniability in many cases, and can state that abuses done with that IP were done by a different person. It can be very difficult to stop an editor who chooses to use an IP abusively, or to prove a pattern of abuse when they keep changing their number.

So just know what you're dealing with here. This isn't a case where you can report someone and have them blocked. Sockpuppet reports will be difficult, because they likely suspects are going to be stale, especially in the case of Richard Daft. Your best option when a person is attacking you with the venom that this IP is using is to not respond in kind. Take the high road. You don't necessarily have to ignore them, and it might not be practical to, but don't respond with name-calling or the like. If you do, you're doing exactly what the IP wants. There are measures that can be taken to at least hinder an IP's abuse, such as range blocks or semi-protection, but when there's a reciprocal series of insults it's difficult to pin down who the "bad guy" is. If you let the IP egg you on, you might get yourself into trouble some day. For your own sake, please take care in the future with your responses. Honestly, the IP and his socks really get on my nerves and I'd very much hate to see him succeed in taking anyone down. -- Atama頭 19:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you indeed the man who came from nowhere. I've been on here since December having come across Wikiproject cricket by accident when doing some reading on that remarkable story that is Afghan cricket, so I've not come across yourself or this Rosebank2 character.

Having read through what you've said it does seem that this Rosebank2 is quite a pathetic individual. I mean, can't people let bygones be bygones. People move on, do other things yet people like that have some bizzare obsession to not follow but to... how to put it... well I suppose it is to follow. Personally I cannot see the point in it. Afterall, it is such a trivial thing for Rosebank2 to be having a dispute with someone over.

I have never heard of the ACS, to be honest being someone with an interest in cricket but not a great statistical knowledge on the game cricinfo and cricketarchive are about my limits! Out of interest, is Richard Daft his real name. If so daft my name, daft by nature! So yes I agree with you, this persons petty vendetta is sad and the sooner he can be cleared off the project the better.

And thanks for the hands-up on my work, dug up some interesting things while I was compiling the first-class cricketers of Hampshire. Most of it was done when I was snowed in my house (I live in the depths of rural Hampshire just outside Petersfield which was the home of the Bonham-Carter's). AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was dragged up yet again. Please note the closing comments in that thread and also the content at User talk:88.111.62.210. I don't really care to know much more about the history of this dispute...please endeavor to end this feud by the most civil means available. — Scientizzle 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Jack. I'm afraid that as I am only a clerk at SPI and I cannot really pass judgement on who is socking and who is not; only admins can do that. I have flagged the case up in the SPI IRC channel, so hopefully an admin will look at the case soon. It is also currently 5th in the line of user reported cases. Sorry for the disruption that you are experiencing from the IP range while this case is pending. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't be of more help, and thanks for your understanding. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed that because the IP troll decided to constantly comment my usertalk, now it's gone it doesn't give him an excuse to come back.

Ah yes, the Small's are another famous cricketing family who lived and were born in the town. Admittedly in my 20 years living near the town I have never been to the churchyard at St Peter’s since I have been interested in the history of the game, which is the last 5 years. George Underdown lived and died in the town, Alexander Cadell died in the town after crashing his car. George Leer also died in the town. I'm sure some other cricketers were born and died in the town but their names escape me. Is brilliant to live in this part of the world where the game as we know it was born. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've known about it for a while but I now know it starts next week and it is going to take up a lot more time than my previous job did. So a few things are going to have to be set aside, including WP. The project is slated to last until about this time next year. I will try and look in occasionally but I doubt if I'll do much editing. Best wishes to everyone at WP:CRIC and all the other friends I've made this year. Be seeing you. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BlackJack. Please note I moved your recent SPI case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. We prefer to use the name of the original sockmaster so as to keep all related cases together. You can find your case there. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly he didn't enjoy Turkey that much. Maybe he could have made the Turkey national cricket team... AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked tagged and so on. Good result. Waiting for the next one. I remember User:Roman888, about seven socks of which I have blocked just myself. SGGH ^ping! 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is a link to, or the creation of, a discussion at WT:RS or similar showing consensus for the reliability of the source in question, then there is a nice bright policy to link these IPs to. Worth doing. SGGH ^ping! 20:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks. You'll probably notice/have noticed that I logged your identity at your userpage. If there's somewhere else you'd rather it go, please let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, MRG. That's fine. I really must do something with the userpage sometime: it's been a redirect to this page for ages. All the best. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 14:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I don't think you should remove the discussion on the WT:CRIC page. If, as I hope, the matter is heading towards a conclusion, then it'll disappear into archive in a few days anyway. But I think it should stay there until that happens as a reminder of what the fuss has been about and to inform other WP:CRIC members, several of whom do not edit at weekends. In addition, to replace a section that has been contributed to by, from my recollection, four people with one solely by yourself is a bit high-handed. Please reinstate. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I don't think you have anything to lose by being open and transparent: the Tillmann character does himself no favours by consistently failing in this regard. I hope it gets resolved this time! Kind regards. Johnlp (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, he is gone for a short while at least. No doubt he'll manifest into a new account.

I've done all the ACC Trophy tournaments, so I thought I'd have a crack at the Gillette Cup matches. The scorecards do bring back some historical names. Is it me or are we missing a 2010 County Championship page, or has it somehow got a different name on here? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could have done with Yorkshire playing slightly worse over the weekend though! Got out and enjoyed the sun seeing Somerset Seconds playing a school XI; opposition we just about managed to beat. I'll still be around and about here a fair bit I expect, but whenever it's sunny and there's cricket.. off I be! And the volcanic ash saga is just amusing from my point of view; but then, I haven't been affected by it.Harrias ^talk 15:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the busy and long wikibreak notices with a more final and permanent one. Those who know me on here are aware that I am constantly having to fight against two vindictive trolls who persistently disrupt those areas of the site (especially WT:CRIC) where I am most active. I have asked myself if I should be spending time here to write articles or to fight trolls. Unfortunately, a major weakness of the site is that a determined troll can get into any procedure, even those which are designated for use by genuine members, and make trouble so their edits cannot just be ignored.

Frankly, Mr Wales' idea that "anyone can edit" is a disaster which he is too proud to recognise. The fundamental philosophy should be that "any genuine editor can edit" and a genuine editor should be someone who has a registered user account and has completed 100 acceptable edits. IP addresses should not be allowed and those with under 100 edits should be on strict probation.

I am not afraid of an argument but there comes a point where you realise that it is an unequal struggle against a determined troll who simply cannot be argued with because there is no reason on his side other than to be destructive. Can the admins help? No, because there are not enough of them numerically and nowhere near enough of them who are committed to their role. The rules of the site work against the admin because, wherever you look, every rule has its loophole that a troll can find and get through.

This is the last post I will make on this site. I have retired before but with the intention of returning someday. This time I have made a conscious decision that I will never use this site again. It is not a question of the availability of time. I expected my new job situation to limit my time on here, hence the busy and break notices I placed last month, but that is not the case and if anything I have more available time than formerly. It is a question of usage of time.

I always intended to use this site for editing and writing articles. That has been time well spent. But now, as my contribs will show you, my time is spent being forced to defend myself against two determined adversaries and that is time wasted.

One of my maxims is to use time wisely and if it comes to the point where time is being wasted and there is no apparent solution to the problem, then walk away and spend the time wisely on another activity.

I have plenty of other activities to be getting on with. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through some of the pre-county club Hampshire players and I have come across a player called Francis Compton. The person on the bluelink has the same name and the same year of birth. The cricketer can be found here and here. The article on the person has his date of death as 1915 whereas the pre-existing article has his date of death as 1918.

Make also makes me think this is the cricketer is his political career, where he was a Member of Parliament for South Hampshire and later the New Forest. Now looking at the year of birth and his connection to Hampshire, could it be suffice to say this is the cricketing Francis Compton?

What I have done is added the cricketing information to the pre-existing article (this can always be removed later) while sources as found, it is the different date of death which is giving me some doubt.

I take your point on the championship but from the 1850's onwards the press usually proclaimed a champion. Of course after 1873 it is, as you say, quasi-official if not a little more than that.KestevenBullet (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your expert editing but are you certain Marten / Martin id is correct, I did it by birth and death datesEddaido (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you are expanding Sutcliffe's article. He was one on my "to-do" list, so it's good someone is doing it. Noticed you are using the Hill biography too. Let me know if I can help with any sourcing. I was thinking of working on more of England's team from the Bodyline series to get as many as possible to GA or better. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check on ca shows Bird and Boycott did not appear together(Bird had already sought release) and, as I knew, Parkinson never played for Yorkshire at any level except in junior trials as I did(once) despite being born in Nottingham!. To many edits appear without fairly straightforward things being checked. We had WHH Sutcliffe playing for CU and being a professional when of course 30 secs on ca gives all the facts. On Sutcliffe RC Robinson-Glasgow somewhere, I think perhaps Vol II of Gents v Players, that HS was making a fool of himself trying to be posh! KestevenBullet (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISTR that Bird, Parkinson and Boyvott all played for Barnsley Cricket Club, JH (talk page) 17:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting that out, it's hard to fix without my source in front of me, and McKinstry isn't the best anyway. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ca isn't error free but in the realm it covers, the errors are small. I hardly call a grammatical error a major one when there was a fairly significant factual error. Please do not attempt to be contentious when I was simply correcting a misconception (ie that MP played for Yorkshire. He was a LHB and is mentioned in the Yorkshire League survey in the cricketer in 1959 as is Bird where it indicates he had been given leave by Yorkshire to 'look elsewhere'.)KestevenBullet (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see that your work on Sutcliffe has led you on to doing some on Hobbs. I've long been aware that his article was inadequate for such a great cricketer. and had been meaning to get around to doing something about it. When/if time permits, I'll try to assist in the improvement process, in particular perhaps helping with the citations (most of which should be easy to find). BTW, I can recommend Ronald Mason's biography of Hobbs, if you fancy adding to your cricket library. JH (talk page) 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you enjoy Mason's book as much as I did. I haven't read Arlott's book - a notable gap in my cricketing education. "Apart from WG himself, I'd say The Master was probably the best there's ever been..." Don't let our Australian colleagues hear you say that. :) JH (talk page) 09:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack. There's already a Crabble Athletic Ground article that seems to cover only the football stadium, now used by Dover Athletic FC. Not quite sure what the layout is and where and how the football and cricket worked alongside each other. KR. Johnlp (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the problem with these things is that a lot of sports venue articles have been created without putting in the name of the town or city where the venue is - even if only in a redirect. It's a job for a long winter's evening to go through as many as possible to add this kind of thing. Sadly I've too much work to do today to watch the cricket... and as you can tell, the displacement activities are already in full swing! Johnlp (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if the ground is still in use for club cricket? If it isn't, then the category "Defunct cricket venues in England" should be added. JH (talk page) 08:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to CA, the ground was last used for cricket in 2002 (Kent Cricket League fixtures). Some photos I've found of a redevelopment project, which includes building a family stand, suggest that it is now a football-shaped field so I think it has gone the same way as Bramall Lane. The only existing Dover cricket club that I can find is one called the Cosmopolitans who play at a venue called The Danes which is presumably elsewhere in the town.

In short, I think you're right and it should be a defunct venue, sadly. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the various Crabble threads led me to read the Kearsney, Kent article, which is one of the (unintentionally) funniest I've seen on WP - much more concerned to tell us what the place isn't, rather than what it is. Johnlp (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt written by a local who matches Jack Hobbs himself for modesty! ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is not strictly correct. As I indicated, the matches WERE printed in the cricketer(a year late) and WERE always included in the records of the Indian participants in Indian Cricket, Playfair and those pre-tour brochures that used to come out. Bowen printed the scores in 1969 and ACS regarded them as fc because Indian cricket and the above journals had done also. WS Conder admitted he did not have the scores 'to hand' when he compiled JBH's career record in Wisden upon his death. There is considerable evidence that Indian matches had a 'double staus' ie: all the Indian players records included them and the English players didn't, because as Conder put i, 'the scores were not to hand.' These matches were f-c and I am reliably informed that Wisden will soon print both records. Players opinions carry no weight in these matters!KestevenBullet (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means add your evidence to the article (and to the Hobbs and Variations articles) but ensure that everything you write is accurately cited for purposes of verification. The citation from Alan Hill confirms that his statistical compiler, a man called Roy Wilkinson, did not accept that the tour was first-class; it also confirms that Hobbs and Sutcliffe agreed with him. An earlier editor claimed that John Arlott supported this view but I could not find a citation so I removed the sentence. The only thing we need to get across is that the tour took place and that there is a difference of opinion about the statistics. You will note that Sutcliffe's infobox stats are the CA version and I have not amended it although I am well aware that Wisden has different figures.

Although you are joking when you say the players' opinion carries no weight, I'm afraid they do on this site. So, if someone does find a definite statement by Hobbs in one of Arlott's books that The Master dismissed Vizzy as an organiser of exhibition matches, that will carry a lot more weight on this site than the views of any statistician, though the statistician's views would also be represented providing they can be cited. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith says there is a birth registration for Richard Miller the gamekeeper and as ca regards him as R.Miller, Bailey must be sure as he is very reluctant to act without sources. All ACS material regards him as R.Miller which tends to mean sources. I have no sources other than Keith W on this but he is pretty sureKestevenBullet (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Oh and there are no senior cricket teams in Dover apparently, though there are clubs nearby. As you are likely aware, many teams with town centre grounds have moved out eg: Aston Unity. According to ECB the 3 counties with the most organised teams are Yorks, Lancs and...... Staffs.KestevenBullet (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith does not have it but Phil Bailey must have seen it as he would not post it otherwise with such a potentially contentious player. e-mail ca and they should tell you. PB works on it every day.KestevenBullet (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll see what I can find out but the problem is that CA is just one source and we are required to give a balanced view on here so I have to take account of Haygarth and the fact that several others agree (or do not disagree) with him. Personally, I think Richard Miller may have been a Surrey player who was in the 1760s Caterham teams while Joseph was the Kent man, given that Haygarth must have got that from somewhere too. All we can do here is try and arbitrate given the consensus among the sources: maybe there should be two articles (one for Richard as well) which complement and cross-reference each other? I'll think about it. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK but you can be fairly sure that PB wouldn't post it unless he was certain.KestevenBullet (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guessed that the line must show something like that. It clearly couldn't be his overall average to that point, as it would have contradicted the text where it says that his average never fell below sixty. JH (talk page) 07:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one of Jardine was correct as alt is supposed to describe the literal picture so that it helps blind people YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that as an Aussie you could think of a better description of Jardine than that. What about the time when he was swatting the only friends he'd got? Or his stays, perhaps?  :-) ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've added a lot of background on Yorkshire's performances between the wars, and it occurred to me that much of the material might make a usful addition to the Yorkshire article. JH (talk page) 20:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so now it's accumulated that way, as it would provide a view of how the team evolved and when new players came in and old ones retired. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Gregory was noted for his ability to frighten batsmen with sheer speed..." That might need some qualification, as my understanding is that he was at his fastest in the series of 1920-1 and 1921, and that by the time Sutcliffe faced him in Tests the edge had been taken off his speed by the after-effects of an injury and increasing age. JH (talk page) 09:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. I think I took the source slightly out of context. I'm sure I read once that Gregory had lost that extra bit of pace by 1924–25 when Sutcliffe first played him in a Test but it was then compounded by injury before or during the 1926 tour. I'm not sure if he had injury problems before 1924–25. But there's no doubt he was most effective in tandem with McDonald. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 11:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the peer review, I'll try to find time over the next day or two to read through the article and see if I have any ideas for improvements. JH (talk page) 16:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to take a look at the article in the next day or two. I don't have the internet at home at the moment, which makes life tricky, but should be sorted this week. Re above comment on Gregory, I always thought he was still pretty sharpish in 24-25 and only really lost effectiveness in 26. The injury which finished him was in 28-29. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done again YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Hambledon venue started, but I though Cheden Holt would be up your street seeing as you're pretty good with grounds from the 18th century. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, AA. I'm not sure what else we can say about it, however, as it was only ever used once. Is it still called Cheden Holt and can its location be identified on a modern map? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good idea where it could be located, but no concrete evidence unless I can dig up some sources, which seem to be non-existent! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Started to look at the article. Not too sure of best place for comments, so I've put them here for now! Great article, by the way. Really good job. I know it's not really your thing, but it looks good for GA or FA in future.

• The lead seems a jumbled with too many paragraphs. Maybe 3 paragraphs: who he was, what he did (including some stats); a summary of his cricketing career; his life outside cricket. I think it definitely needs more on what he did. I think it needs to say who believes he is one of the best opening batsmen (which he undoubtedly was!); unfortunately Wisden doesn't. Swanton or Robertson-Glasgow might, so I'll have a look.
• There may be some issues with the image. I've used it in the Captaincy Crisis article and been pulled up for it as it isn't properly attributed.
• Someone will comment on the length if it ever goes to GAN or FAC. At some point, it may be worth forking some of the article, but it's not urgent. I'll happily do it later if it needs it.
• Just glancing through, there seem to be a few short paragraphs which maybe could be merged. Prose looks really good though, and I'm slightly jealous.
• As far as sources go, I've got a few bits here and there. Lots on bodyline, some Cardus stuff and other info from Bowes among others. The Times might be useful too for some of it. To be honest, though, I imagine Hill is fairly comprehensive. Do you have access to Sutcliffe's autobiography? I imagine Hill has the best bits already.

I'll keep looking over the next day or two and really read it carefully. Great stuff. Nice to have some detailed stuff on pre-war English cricketers. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were interested in FA BJ, then you may as well start a PR and ask Brianboulton to have a look, as he doesn't miss much, adn won't miss the FAC in any case YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much indeed to all of JH, Sarastro and YM for your time and your very helpful comments. As Sarastro recalls, I'm not keen on the GA or FA processes and I will put that option on the backburner, though I've no objection at all to anyone else who might want to promote the article and I will certainly assist with any reasonable queries or issues arising. The peer review process might be interesting, however. It's more a question of time with me as I have other articles that I want to expand and I don't have as much time now as I had formerly.

I don't regard the lead as a done deal. I always think a lead should be the very last task in a writing project and I would be more than happy to change it completely if necessary. I've been a bit disappointed with Wisden on the subject overall as it seems to utilise certain well-worn observations in a formal tone without any of the eulogy that it accords other players, including many lesser players.

If you mean the image in the infobox, I've got the complete photo in one of my books and it shows him and Hobbs walking out together. It can also be seen here. The description in the WP file is incorrect as it was not taken in 1921 and it is not a YCCC image. We should be able to get a better one so I'll look around.

The length began to trouble me once it approached 100k with a lot of useful stuff still to be added but I've done some site research and found that there are articles of over 500k. Sutcliffe is now one of the 1000 longest pages and I think is currently the longest cricket article, having overtaken Gilchrist. I think the length constraints were fair enough in years past when long articles caused problems on earlier browser versions but I don't see 100k as a problem for current browser versions, especially if used with broadband, so I'd be inclined to resist the sort of calls that YM faced to create sub-articles for the Invincibles players. Besides, in Sutcliffe's career, I don't think there is any one event or season that is big enough in itself to justify a separate article unless, perhaps, the project attempts a featured topic on bodyline. As with Gilchrist and Harbhajan, I think a self-contained article is the correct approach for this subject.

Bill Bowes is a source I would like to see more of. Are there any books by him that you would recommend?

The Hill biography is generally okay but there are gaps and he doesn't say where each bit of info comes from. He certainly did use Sutcliffe's autobiography but I couldn't be sure if he has made best use of it; I haven't seen the autobiography. I have to say I'm surprised that Hill's book won the Cricket Society award as it doesn't strike me as a prizeworthy effort. It's good, and worth reading, but not that good.

Once again, thank you all very much for your help. Best wishes. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the article sizes, the bloat is usually only complained of at GA/FA and these are always basically due to guidelines on the prose size, rather than the total size, which is due to coding. Gilly is only 43k prose and Jardine about 66k, but as Gilly is recent, Cricinfo/BBC news etc is more usable than yet-to-be=published biogs, then the long web details make Ranatungas of everything. This also applies to all teh other current player FAs. Some of your stuff seems as though it could easily be cited with a std book though, to speed up the load, and some of the scorecards you cite aren't needed; if only Sutcliffe's score adn the match result is needed, then simply pulling his oracle list , eg at Ian Craig 50+ times, works, as that gives you all his matches, runs, wickets and also the match score and hence result. you only need the scorecard in some cases where you discuss a partnerhip, FOW, rain, etc. As for the forks, they are only there for Miller, Ponting and the 1948-specific stuff as far as I know. These were because Miller and Ponting were just really long in prose on all fronts (100+ raw prose), so they had to be forked, while the 1948 players stuff had to be forked because there was 25k+ available on 1948 and if it wasn't forked there would have been undue weight, rather than the raw prose being unacceptably long. But in any case, anybody of the quality/infamy of Jardine, Lindwall, Miller, Tiger, Grimmett, Fingo, McCabe, Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Rhodes, Hammond, Hutton, Trueman, Laker, Bedser, Larwood, Hassett, Harvey, Davidson, Compton is going to need 50k prose minimum, just because of the many iconic/flamboyant performances and controversies, let alone Bradman. Only a boring player with no politics or a shortish career would be less than 50 YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, YM. I'll bear the Oracle list in mind. When you say "it could easily be cited with a std book" do you mean I could just cite Hill, the main biogrpaher, without specific page nos?

Just to digress a little on the subject of article length, the biggest of all cricket articles, when it's finished, will certainly be the biggest of all cricket names: WG himself. This passed 100k the other day and I wouldn't be surprised if it's currently about 50% complete. Do you have any thoughts at this stage about how we should handle that in anticipation of it reaching 200k-plus? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 06:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever can be cited to the "Hill, p. 308" only takes up about 12 characters, and a distnct webcite takes aboue 200-300, so they stack up. I would just edit and then think about it. Did his careers have any phases that make for easy fencing off? For Federer and Nadal they have separate in 2008 in 2009 etc. That could be done with F1 drivers as well. Bradman is pretty short at the moment, the main author actually left before he finished the article and on later reading there are bits missing, especially his all-powerful political roel, but with guys of that era a post and pre war split is easy YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bowes' autobiography is Express Deliveries. It's a great book if you can get hold of it. I've a copy and will add anything interesting. He talks a lot about Sutcliffe's character and single-mindedness. And re GA/FA, I think it is worth going down that route for this article once it's finished, even if you don't want to do it yourself. As far as phases go, you could have an early, pre-Test section, or a late career section, but there is nothing that really leaps out as a distinct phase. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look on eBay and see if I can find one. Thanks very much. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you've hopefully seen, I put my initial comments on the article's talk psge. Would you rather have future comments here? JH (talk page) 09:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a belated answer on the article's talk page and am happy to field future comments there as they would be more relevant to that page. Thanks again. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Given that Wilde didn't use quotation marks and therefore didn't claim to be using Bradman's exact words, I think that what he wrote doesn't misrepresent what Bradman said. And of course Bradman himself may have come up with the same comment more than once in slightly different words in different places; we don't know for sure that Wilde took it from what was quoted in Wisden. JH (talk page) 08:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that the BlackJack who kept altering my edits on Beldham's page was such an authority ! That said, as I've added to the discussion on his page, I feel the date of his first 'first class' match for Hambledon/Hampshire is more likely to be 1787 than 1785, given that his recollections don't tally exactly with the surviving records and that in 1782-86 he was doubtless still turning out regularly for the newly-formed Farnham club.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an authority, just an interested amateur. I've replied to your point on the Beldham talk page in terms of Underdown being the verifiable source for Beldham pre-1786. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 13:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on getting a full list together of grounds which have hosted FC, LA and T20 matches, never knew so many had! I posted what I had at the time on the project talk page, took in the suggestions. It has changed a bit since then, I've added a reference column and I'm including al major teams (minus international ones) who have played at each ground and the period in which it was in use. I'm still having trouble working out how to structure it though. I've gone by the traditional counties CA uses, I'll add the Isle of Wight and the Welsh counties later, but there must be a better way to lay it out than I have, with that damn awfully huge contents box (can it be hidden?), but it is needed to navigate to the relevant county. Any pointers? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are improving Fred's article. If you have any good stuff on the 53-54 West Indies tour, could you let me know? I'm still doing the never-ending Hutton article and I'm looking for a bit more on the tour. I know there are some decent books, I think Swanton did one. But if you have any good information which related to Hutton, I'd be grateful. Do you have any other Yorkshire players on the agenda? And re Sutcliffe, I've just got hold of "For Yorkshire and England" and there are some good photos in which I'm hoping to scan. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take any of the bits on 53-54 from the Len Hutton article (which is still very much a work in progress), most of it comes from the biography of Hutton by Howat in the late 80s which is bland but has useful stuff in it. I've got the Hutton book from the 40s, but I'd like to get hold of the one he wrote in 56. One other useful source for Fred would be Bob Appleyard's biography from a few years ago; it has some good stuff on his early years (and on Close, too). I agree that the two articles which are crying out for improvement are the W.G. and the Hobbs ones, given the importance of their subjects. I've got Hammond at FAC at the moment, and it was mentioned that Hobbs needs doing! However, I've nothing on either of them except a Wisden Anthology 1900-39 and a little book called WGs Birthday Party which came out recently. But I doubt I've anything that you haven't. However, when you get that far, let me know if I can help. Lord Hawke should be ... interesting! --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since my previous message, I've acquired Arlott's biography of Hobbs. I wouldn't mind having a crack at the Hobbs article now, but as you called it first, I won't do anything if you'd like to take it on. And it wouldn't be for a little while anyway as there's a couple of other things I want to get to first. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I was saying is this - It is usual to supply supporting evidence when quoting one's own work. Your idea about 1660 is the view of a tiny minority(of one) whilst ACS members are behind every major cricket reference book without exception. A bit of a diference do you not think. Also I know your view was not the ACS view because I published it in the journal and we have such a disclaimer. I believe it will be removed from the website because of a fundamental rethink about the site itself. It is uneccesary to be unpleasent. KB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.53.76 (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away hence the KB - I like what you've put now. It sums it up well. KB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.53.76 (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we'll leave it at that, then. Sorry I was not in a good mood earlier. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again! I've just started an article on Old Ebor. I've put in everything I've got, I just wondered if you had any more. Also, any images of him? Preferably published before 1923, as I've been having all sorts of problems with images being PD! --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jack! Having created plenty of articles on old grounds, have you done for for Epsom Down yet? I can't seem to find any article about it on here, just wondering if I've missed it somewhere on here! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving swiftly along, I'm now moving onto cricket grounds in Middlesex. I've come across W Fennex's New Ground, used in the late 1700s. I can't find it on here and just wondering if I've missed it! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such Geographical County as N Yorks S Yorks or indeed any of the others created by Harold Wilson in 1974. They were removed in the late 80's. Where the counties exist is as postal entities to aid sorting.(Horse's mouth from Stoke-on-Trent sorting Office) There is a tendancy to also use Greater Manchester and West Midlands. This is actually completely wrong. I live in Shropshire but my postal address is Wales(Montgomery). So in order to assist the smooth running of the PO, I'm in another country. I make no contribution to the argument other than to say that places exist Geographically ie; Liverpool, Lancashire and postally, Liverpool, Merseyside. KestevenBullet (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]