User talk:Blue Square Thing

Welcome!

Hello, Blue Square Thing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- MightyWarrior (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Hope you've had a pleasant Christmas. Happy new year and remember: "Illegitimi non carborundum" Reyk _YO! 15:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hello there. User:BlackJack is blocked now, perhaps you want to come back? WP:CRIC is starting to become dead, maybe its time is over. Störm (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. I imagine there's already a sock in place... and in 6 months time the sock master will be back anyway. I have plenty to keep me busy. If there's anything important at CRIC then let me know. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he'll be back, maybe not. One thing's for sure though: he can never again try to take the moral high ground with anyone. Trying to get people blocked for alleged incompetence or being not here to edit the encyclopedia, all while running a big socking ring, is about as hypocritical as you can get. If he comes back and tries the old tactic of yelling abuse at people and then running to WT:CRIC to sob about how hard done by he is, one only needs to remind everyone of the false flag operation he's been running. Reyk _YO! 14:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll see - I'm sure there'll be a perfectly normal way that everything is presented. Which might also be totally legitimate of course. I've enjoyed having a break - the problem is that the season starts tomorrow... Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it starts again

Kent County Cricket Club in 2018 Many thanks for setting up the page! I had been meaning to do so again, but work commitments have limited me to updates and fixes rather than any creation lately. I will absolutely be helping to keep it up to date and will put some arrivals/departures in as usual at some point. Could be a tough season though... Bs1jac (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting there with fixtures and the like. If you could check for errors at some point that'd be really handy! Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN

It is not necessary to revert "unnecessary" pipes. "Wisden" was briefly made into a disambiguation page, for which all incoming links needed to be fixed, but after discussion was changed back to a redirect. These pipes, made as fixes during that period, can remain per WP:NOTBROKEN. bd2412 T 00:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. If I'm dong other work on articles then I might remove some, but I won't do that alone. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket project

Hi, I would like to volunteer in contributing towards some cricket project. Can I request you to share some inputs with regards to this?

Vikram Maingi (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to WikiProject:Cricket then I imagine. You seem to be doing a good enough job at stuff like the PSL pages though. There's really not much in the way of organisation or guidelines there - just do your best would be my advice. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PSL

Hi! How are you? Please see your message here: User talk:M.Billoo2000#PSL. "I'd also like people […] out of the individual season." Should we start working on? Thanks! M. Billoo 02:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could do - I've not looked at a PSL article in ages to be honest, but it's probably a good idea to. Not sure if I'll have the time just now though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lasith Malinga

Hi, was reading this yesterday and came back to it just now to check something. Couldn't help but spot the difference!

Those stat tables are an abomination. I'm from South Africa and a lot of our cricket articles have them too. Can you give me some background to site policy here because I imagine there'll be those who support use of stats and removing whole tables will no doubt get their sails up and flying. Would like to remove them myself when they are, as you say, lacking context. I don't mind the infobox thingies like the one in Malinga and I don't mind a small table which summarises or illustrates a chunk of narrative, but when you get an in-yer-face block of numbers with little or no narrative, that's what we call kak! Thank you. Protea caffra (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RfC fairly recently at the cricket wiki project - here's a direct link to it. It seems that the general view is that if there is sufficient context then a table might be appropriate, and there are ones I'm leaving in articles because I see that there is some possibility that they may be extended. But without context - as in the Malinga article - it seems reasonable to do away with them. I've probably done the same at some other South African ones as well - the link will almost certainly be that they played for Kent (or might do - we seem to be jumping on the Kolpak bandwagon I'm afraid (sorry)). Hopefully the RfC is clear enough - by all means ask if you need any other context. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear enough, indeed. We're talking indiscriminate information here and I see there is a site-wide policy about that too. If and when I get more involved in editing, I'll take all of this on board. Thank you very much and good luck with your Kolpaks – hope they score a few runs for you. Protea caffra (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Protea caffra: @Blue Square Thing: correct me if I'm wrong here, but the consensus reached on that RfC page wasn't to completely remove the information presented in the tables, but to put them in some kind of context and in prose so they're not just lists and lists of stats which would of course violate WP:NOTSTATS. This is in contrast to what Protea has been doing, which is to just remove every stats section on every cricketer's page. I also need to point out that no one on that RfC page seems to advocate removing details of significant international awards either, instead preferring to mention them in the body of the article as prose- I have no idea if Protea has followed that, or what significant information may have been lost in the slew of edits he's been doing. Protea, did you ask anyone besides Blue Square about this? Changes like the ones you're doing need significant consensus and organization to do. I'm just concerned this might have been rushed into based on Protea's personal distaste for the stats tables.- ක - (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As my edit summary says, I am "removing indiscriminate statistical data in compliance with site standards including the cricket project ruling". The site standards in question are WP:NOTSTATS and WP:TOOMUCH. No doubt there are other policies and guidelines in support but, no matter, because both of these have been flagrantly breached by the person who is responsible for plastering bare statistical tables all over the site's cricket coverage. The cricket project is in agreement that WP:NOTSTATS must be respected. What possible use to a casual reader is a complicated statistical table with no context? None at all. Worse, it is a distraction that puts people off reading the article. If anyone wishes to mention specific awards and achievements in an article's narrative, no one is stopping them. But, the tables go unless there is context as directed by fundamental site policy on indiscriminate information. Protea caffra (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Protea caffra: This is my point exactly. Simply removing the information is something anyone could do- the right way of going about this would be to have quick skim through of what you're deleting and see if there's anything that merits inclusion in the body of the article in prose, which is also something that was decided upon on the RfC. As far as I can tell, that's not being done, so we may be losing valuable or notable information. I ask that you carefully re-read what I wrote before, because you seem to be replying to something I wasn't saying. I don't know how much more clear I can be about this point, and I apologize if I'm not coming across clearly, but the point is this- don't remove information indiscriminately without having a read through and seeing if there's anything you can put into words and include in prose in the text. Don't leave it to other editors to do, since it falls on you to preserve what information is needed for inclusion now that you're deleting these tables- simply saying "If anyone wishes to mention specific awards and achievements in an article's narrative, no one is stopping them" isn't enough- it just creates more work for everyone else at a later date. Again, the responsibility is on you to edit responsibly: once you delete the tables, any editor that wants to go back and see if there's anything notable in those tables that deserves mention in the text has to go through the page history, find the info you deleted and then include anything interesting/notable in the article. Surely it's easier on all of us if you took some time to look at what you were deleting before you did so? Following policy doesn't mean following it bluntly with no regard to fallout- there's an implicit duty here to not create a headache for future editors.- ක - (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit duty falls on the person who has created these tables in open defiance of WP:NOTSTATS. His duty is to observe site policy on indiscriminate information and consider the impact of such excess on the readers. He has not done so and has created a headache for the cricket project which BlueSquareThing and I are helping to remedy. As for worthwhile content, man of the match awards are trivial and should only be mentioned in exceptional cases. When a player has scored a Test century or taken ten wickets in a Test match, however, that is of course worthy of mention. But, I am invariably finding that these achievements are already mentioned in the narratives, so adding the same information into a complicated table is duplication and that is in no one's interest. You are looking at the problem through the wrong end of the telescope. Never mind sticking up for your mate who loves creating tables. Think about site policy and ask yourself why it is site policy. Because excessive, complicated, technical data is not what the readers should be confronted with if we want them to read our articles. Protea caffra (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Protea caffra: You're a new editor here, so let me point out something very fundamental about how Wikipedia works: it's the work of a number of different editors. What usually happens when one creates a page, especially if one is a new editor, is to copy and use a format from an existing page of the same type. For instance, if one were to create a new page for a cricketer, one would go onto the page of, say, Adam Gilchrist, and copy the format used there. I highly doubt the addition of stats tables on these pages are the work of one editor, rather they're the result of editors copying what they regard as 'established practice' when creating new pages. Also, I don't have "mates" on Wikipedia.

Now, on the actual topic of discussion, you seem (again) to misunderstand me and argue a strawman. I have no problem with removing the tables- read my earlier comments: my issue here is that notable information may be being lost when you get rid of the stats tables, and all I asked here was that you read before deleting, and include anything notable in the body of the text. I've had a few looks through the edits of this kind you've done, and noticed all you've done are deletions- obviously I can't sit here and go through each edit, so if you are indeed going through what you delete before you do so and making sure anything that's important enough to be mentioned is put into the text in prose, then great! If not, pause and do so. Of course man of the match awards are trivia, and it would be a pointless exercise to mention them in the article- that wasn't my point. I'm asking you to exercise good judgement on whether or not anything needs to be left in (in the form of prose, not tables), that's all.- ක - (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesuschristonacamel: This discussion might better be had at the either the cricket project talk page or Talk:Steve Smith (cricketer) - the Stats section. A similar point has been made there. In the case of Malinga there was an existing records list on the page. I left that in place as it contained almost all the information in the tables that was worthwhile. I think. I could be wrong though. Wouldn't be the first time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy hell, what a mess this turned out to be. So I had no idea that this was being debated over at SS's page- all I had to go on were the edits PC was doing. I hope you understand what I was trying to say here, and that I was by no means attacking you two in any way. I just noticed PC's message both here and at Spike 'em's page... What even is going on? Someone accused him of Sockpuppetry? - ක - (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesuschristonacamel: No worries - the queries you've raised have helped me think about the issue of lists in some different ways. I much prefer prose and dislike some kinds of lists in articles. Part of the problem is that these types of lists have issues with referencing, a lack of context, incompleteness etc... There are wider issues relating to the use of statistics and primary sources - leading to elements of synthesis and so on - in cricket articles. The over-reliance on statistics for their sake is one reason that I would tend to have issues with lists like these. On the SP issue, there have been concerns raised. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virat Kohli

Hi again. I suspect this will not go down well in some quarters. I was reading about Kohli and found a load of stats for the sake of stats at the foot of the article. I deleted it all and it amounted to 50kb! Can you put the article on watch, please, in case I need your help? Alternatively, if I'm mistaken, then please do explain the policy to me. Not finding too much time for editing, I'm afraid. Busy, busy.

Can't help but laugh how the Aussies have given us the series but, flip side, it's ruined a great contest so more annoying than funny. Protea caffra (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting

Just for future reference, the fact that dates are written day-first in French does not automatically force day-first date formatting in English just because the subject happens to be from a French-speaking region. The rule for date formatting in Canadian articles, inclusive of Quebec, on the English Wikipedia is to not to flip dates back and forth based on personal or regional or WP:ENGVAR preferences — dates in Canadian-related articles are kept at whichever format, DMY or MDY, was used by the first person to add a full date to the article, and are flipped only if there's an internal inconsistency within the article. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK - found that now. That part had escaped me - I was assuming that as Quebec uses DMY that a strong tie to Quebec would count, but clearly not. Sorry about that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

Hi. I am taking my leave. I find this site unwholesome. You and a few others are exceptions to the rule and I admire your tenacity. I don't like my time being wasted and I don't like insinuations about me in places where I might not see them. I'll look forward to reading more from you about Kent. So long. Protea caffra (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for your work and comments on those cricket articles. The draft one looks a lot better and should be able to pass GNG / NEVENT too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 County Championship

Hi,

I have created a page on 2018 County Championship, which should contain all the details of this year's English County (Specsavers) championship. I saw that you were regular in updating the last year's page. I seek your help in continuous/ regular updates on this page with results, news, stats etc.

Thanks and Regards,

Vikram Maingi (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I dealt with the div 2 template and then some prose, I won't be touching scores on there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100 ball cricket

Hi,

I have created a page on 100 ball cricket. This should entail all the details around the 100 ball cricket, which ECB is planning to introduce in 2020. As you are a huge cricket fan, I request you to review this page and keep updating it as and when you find it necessary.

Thanks and Regards, Vikram Maingi (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Australian cricket team in South Africa in 1993–94 has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Australian cricket team in South Africa in 1993–94. Thanks! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australian cricket team in South Africa in 1993–94, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stay stong!

I see we both got JACKed last night, I'm guessing he was on the beers yesterday. Unfortunately(?) I missed his full diatribe as it was deleted before I got to see it all. Spike 'em (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me too thankfully. I wondered where he'd gone. Reduces any thought of a standard offer though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishopsbourne Paddock

You should move this to Bourne Paddock. The contemporary sources used three different versions (the third is Bourn Paddock) but Ian Maun's researches prove conclusively that Bourne Paddock was the most common. Haygarth adopted Bishopsbourne Paddock throughout S&B so his usage has been transcripted here. To be fair to Haygarth, the earliest known primary source mention of the ground called it Bishopsbourne Paddock. One thing all sources agree upon is that the ground was a paddock! 213.1.11.20 (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just one other point. Please do not cite CricketArchive for 18th century matches, venues or people. Beware especially of their "views" about first-class status. If you have a query about something in S&B, Buckley, Waghorn, ACS, Maun, etc. or just want a page number, raise it at the article talk page and I will see it, probably within a week or two, and I'll look up the information.

The majority of these articles have not been revised since the 2000s so I'm happy to see them being flagged up but information has to be correct for the benefit of the readers and CricketArchive's coverage of early cricket to about the time of WG is frankly unreliable, which is why the book sources are so important (and they are reliable). 213.1.11.20 (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archives