Talk:List of English cricketers (1598–1787): Difference between revisions

 

Line 1: Line 1:

{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2025}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2025}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(999d)

| algo = old()

| archive = Talk:List of English cricketers (1598–1787)/Archive %(counter)d

| archive = Talk:List of English cricketers (1598–1787)/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 1

| counter = 1

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cricket, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cricket articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale. This page has been marked as needing a taskforce assigned. WikiProject Cricket To-do list: Article assessment Verifiability Update fair and unfair play, fast bowling, first-class cricket, googly, innings, leg break, limited overs cricket, not out, Pakistan Cricket Board, spin bowling, underarm bowling, wicket, and other fundamental articles classified by the WikiProject as high-importance so that they meet WP:Verifiability policy standards Cleanup Infoboxes Cricket people Cricket teams & countries Images On this day in cricket Umpires Women Update Other This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

There seem to be quite a lot of entries, particularly in the first table of this, where the people involved aren’t cricketers as such but people who are known to have played cricket. I’m thinking about those involved in various trials and so on mainly. I’d suggest going through and removing those who fall under the “people who played cricket” category, unless anyone objects massively. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll think about actioning this as no one has objected. Not quite sure, but I imagine a summary section will be useful. Lots of the detail is covered elsewhere anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Begun to do this. It might want changing or even reverting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, a cricketer is a person who plays cricket, so what exactly is “opposed to” supposed to mean? More importantly, the purpose of this article is to provide historical information about the early history of the sport. Very few people up to the 1740s would meet GNG, and so a list like this is the only way of providing our readers with information about them. There is no “people who played cricket” category. There is a “people who made significant contributions to the history of cricket” category, and this article tells our readers what is known about those people.

You were right about one thing, though, which was that it needed to be reverted. Jack (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the August 2018 version of List of English cricketers to 1786, as it was then called. This has been done per WP:PRESERVE, which has been breached by the indiscriminate removal of significant historical information. The article is a sourced historical record, not a collection of statistics. The 1772/86 “replacement” is inadequate because, with a few exceptions, it sources CricketArchive (CA) only. 1772/86 has 33 players without citations, thereby breaching WP:V, whereas ALL players in the original are reliably sourced without citing any statistical databases. In addition, 72/86 was created in breach of WP:PROSPLIT without attribution, which was not provided until after a complaint was registered at ARBCOM.

CA as a statistical database is only interested in matches with surviving scorecards. As far as those without scorecards are concerned, CA effectively says they never happened because the limited statistics available are presented as both definite and final. CA is an unreliable source for anything before 1826 (the Lord’s fire in 1825 resulted in a huge loss of unique early records). By the way, I have no problems with CA from 1864 when overarm bowling began, and it is generally reliable for 1826 to 1863.

There is also a WP:OR issue in 72/86. The idea that Edward Aburrow, for example, “played in 44 first-class matches for Hampshire sides” directly contradicts all sources including CA. He did not play for Hampshire “sides”: he played for Hampshire. Yes, that was Hampshire before the present county club was founded in 1863, but it was still the acknowledged Hampshire county team. Twenty years ago, the project agreed to differentiate between club and pre-club by creating both Hampshire County Cricket Club and Hampshire county cricket teams (the same solution was applied to several other county teams). The appropriate link should be used for the first instance, of course, but the rendered page must say Hampshire because that is what all sources, including CA, call the team. Incidentally, the Hampshire link isn’t in 72/86; the only county team link is to Kent.

Still with Aburrow, the original list tells the reader that he was an active player from 1767, he was the son of “Cuddy” Aburrow, and he was a Hampshire regular to 1782. That cites Haygarth alone, but there are other sources. The 72/86 entry states baldly, and without a citation, that Aburrow played in 44 matches. As with virtually all pre-1826 players, Aburrow played in countless more matches for which there are no surviving scorecards. Trying to introduce “definite” statistics into such an indeterminate scenario can only create false information. The original list only states a number of matches if that is all we know about the player.

For example, all we know of James Bayley is that his name appeared in four reports or scorecards between 1773 and 1783, so the original entry states: “Made four known appearances from 1773 to 1783”, sourced to Haygarth. Note the use of the word “known”, unlike the pronouncements in 72/86. As Bayley’s known career spanned eleven seasons, it would be safe to assume he played in rather more than four matches, but we only know of four. Needless to say, four is the absolute number as far as 72/86 is concerned.

I’m happy to answer any reasonable and relevant questions about this. Please remember that we need to present credible and verifiable information to our readers. Please also bear in mind that there have been breaches of NOR, PRESERVE and PROSPLIT in the handling of this article since December 2018. Thank you, Jack (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackJack: I noticed I had a notification because this edit of yours reverted one of my edits. Apparently, the non-page move edit of mine you reverted was to apparently revert a bunch of edits put into this article by sockpuppet Boca Jóvenes; so, to confirm, you are claiming that the sockpuppet’s edits are okay and you’re approving them and can stick behind their existence? Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steel1943. Yes, I actually intended to restore the August 2018 version, but the January 2023 one was itself a restoration of that, and it includes enhancements that I’d prefer to keep. However, I want to do things properly, and I’ll be happy to go back to August 2018 if you think I should. In fact, as I think about it, that does seem to be the right approach.

I’ll be pushed for time most of today, so I’ll leave it as is for now. Please let me know what you think, and I’ll take it from there. Thanks very much, Jack (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not exactly sure, either way; as long as you are aware that you are potentially restoring a sockpuppet’s edits, and you have no qualms with doing so, that’s the gist of my concerns. (Otherwise, I can’t recall what was going on here as I made my reverted edit almost three years ago.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The differences between the two are not really important, as it happens. I think, to do this properly, I should go back to August 2018, and take it forward from there. So, that’s what I’ll do. Thanks for bringing this up because you’ve helped me make up my mind. All the best, Jack (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]