User talk:Jhall1/archive Jun,06-Dec,06

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jhall1/archive_Jun,06-Dec,06.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Robdurbar 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no coincidence; you popper up on my radar when you edited the List of Durham University people (a page I started myself). Happy editing! --Robdurbar 23:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jhall1 for your cricket edits. please join us at WikiProject Cricket, where we are attempting to coherently expand crickeet coverage on wikipedia. Thanks, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Good stubs you've just written. Keep it up! Sam Vimes | Address me 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jhall1, for adding information to the Bryan Wells (cricketer) page. Arawn 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are John Hall of rsc, aren't you ? I don't know why I took so long to recognise you ! Tintin (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what is the connection between GG and Horse ? Tintin (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm that John Hall. I was wondering whether you were rsc's Tintin. :)

In baby-talk, a "gee-gee" is a horse. JH 09:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit on my short comment on the Project Talk page: I'm a bit uneasy about using University Match (cricket) as a title for an article about the Oxford v Cambridge match for a couple of reasons. Since this is a bit waffly, I thought it best to put it direct to you.

Firstly, as I said there, "Varsity" is widely used to refer to cricket even within Oxbridge: see, for example, this page from Cambridge, which although it uses "University Match" at the top, also says: "Dating back to 1827, the Varsity Cricket Match is the oldest..." And here's one from Sidney Sussex College, titled "Free Admission to Varsity Cricket Match 2002". This usage is echoed at Oxford: a 2005 Oxford University Society report contains this: "Unfortunately the Oxford men’s team lost the Varsity Cricket match...", and an issue of Oxford Blueprint has "...a radical new change to the annual Varsity cricket match..."

The second thing that gives me pause is that the intended title does rather invite the question of where other university cricket should be covered, as matches between a county and Oxford or Cambridge in pre-UCCE times are often listed as "University Match", as can be seen in this (randomly chosen) fixture list for 1990. Yes, a page such as University cricket could easily be set up, but there might still be some potential for confusion.

This isn't something I have very strong views about, I should make clear, so I'm not going to kick up a fuss about whichever name you decide upon. Nor did I attend Oxbridge, so I will obviously defer to any knowledge you or anyone else have about the "official" name. I'm just not quite sure whether the nomenclature is necessarily quite as clear-cut an issue as some people (Jack...) think it is! Loganberry (Talk) 15:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply about this; I think what you intend should work pretty well. I see you've already got a pretty decent stub up, which is excellent to see. The redlinks will need to be sorted out, of course (ie by pointing them to names rather than just initials, except maybe in MJK's case!) but other than that I don't see anything wrong with it at all. Good stuff! Loganberry (Talk) 16:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. I didn't realise the CUCC and OUCC articles were so small. I'll make a note to add to them in due course. Do you think a list of results would help the University Match article? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/archive19#India_in_ICC contains an unsolved problem about the year that India joined the ICC. Any comments would be welcome. Tintin (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. Barclay's sounds like 1929 :-\ Please let me know if you come across any more on this. Tintin (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased you've put an article in on Gibson: a charming, hugely intelligent, irascible, impossible character (I met him a few times) but one of the wittiest writers on cricket of all time, in my view. I particularly liked one Times column where, if I remember correctly, a match at Derby managed, because of rain, to have only four balls bowled all day. Gibson, though, got a full column out of it by complaining, at length, about the rules of Scrabble in the Derbyshire press box and maintaining that the county's fortunes were likely never to revive while they allowed so many doubtful words. There was one report also where he arrived (at, I think, the Wagon Works ground in Gloucester, an old favourite) to find the Sage of Longparish already installed in the press box and expecting Gibson to be somewhere quite elsewhere. I have a copy of A Mingled Yarn somewhere: it's quite painful to read in parts. Johnlp 21:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, John. I'm afraid the reference list I've been using in all of these articles is a default and it's especially bad as two of them are specifically about Sussex. I've reduced the Surrey list to nine which I have used and from which I have additional material to be added in due course. I'll make a note to go back through the other counties and check their lists: I know I have edited one or two but can't remember which ones! Thanks for pointing it out.

What I'm doing with the counties is creating an additional article re any county that had first-class teams before the county club was formed. These are Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Middlesex, Essex and Berkshire who all had "county teams" via various organisations, hence the change of title from "X cricket team" to "X county cricket teams". In addition there were the "old town clubs" operating in Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester and Manchester which were nevertheless representative of their respective counties and were occasionally referred to as the county.

Then to provide a more historical perspective within the county club articles, I'm ensuring that they all have sections about their origins and first-ever matches and what have you, as well as a bit of standardisation of honours lists, etc. Some of the county club articles like Somerset and Yorkshire were already very good but most are really stubs in terms of their potential. Some were poor, especially Essex and Lancashire where a reader would think the clubs were formed in the last 25 years or so.

As well as Berkshire, I need to do some work on Norfolk and Cambridgeshire which had first-class teams in the 19th century. I still have Glamorgan, Northants and Worcestershire to look at among county clubs: the Northants article is very sparse. I would like to do something with all the other minor counties too.

Nice to hear from you again. All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your message, John, and for correcting the article!

Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, John. I'm looking for a consistent format to use across all counties. It's meant balancing different existing usages.

The main thing is to ensure that the honours section is in the same location and I decided to follow Playfair and have it straight after the intro. Most county articles already had it there anyway. Then it was a case of what sub-headings to use as I want to include 2nd XI and any past Minor Counties titles (I've used the same approach for the Minor Counties themselves). Other Honours already existed in the Yorkshire and Lancashire articles so I adopted the idea as it is useful.

Having thought about the former B&H Cup, I decided to place it in Other Honours as I think the main honours should be for (a) first XI titles; (b) national championships; (c) current competitions. My main reason for doing this is that the encyclopaedia is intended to be a permanent record and, in years to come, people who are new to cricket and look at honours are going to wonder why this tournament they've never heard of is in there with the current ones. So, although it is still recent, I decided to take the long-term view and have current competitions only in the main section. Incidentally, although I haven't done anything with this yet, I think "finishing tenth" (i.e., winning Division Two) should go in Other Honours.

Re first XI titles, the Minor Counties was an issue as four counties won it at first XI level while several others have won it at second XI level. Fortunately none of the first four ever won it as a 2nd XI so MC goes into first XI honours for them and in 2nd XI honours for the rest.

The C&G Trophy is difficult. At first I used the generic term "Knockout Cup" which is used in a few books but two or three people in different articles soon changed it to C&G or to Gillette or to NatWest or a combination. I thought the current name might be the best to use (as with the National League). I think it would be an idea to add a footnote re both of these on every page to explain past titles but leave the current names in the sub-headings: if you're okay with that I'll do it in a day or so.

Re the B&H, I'm open to offers. Now that you've seen my rationale, if you still think it should go back in the main section I'll move it as I'm not bothered. It's just that I think, long-term, people will eventually relegate it as it is obsolete.

I'm happy to have a forum about all this on the WikiProject page but it's one of those things that needs doing first so people can look at it and then decide.

Thanks for writing to me again, John. I'm always glad to hear from you as you take a historic view of the game. All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, just to let you know I changed all county articles as you suggested and in addition I changed the National League tag to "Sunday/National League". I'm going to put Division Two wins below the championship or NL title but indented. As they are season-long competitions they should be recognised but they should not be equated with winning the Division One title. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I honestly don't know how that one was missed. Perhaps there was one of the "session data lost" messages and I didn't see it. Fortunately I'd done the work for all of these in TextPad beforehand so the data wasn't lost. Anyway, it's there now.

This is quite a daunting task really and the hard bit is yet to come because we have hardly anything on the site about 19th century cricket. I've got all the data I need for the 18th century but it's no simple job to put it together for Wikipedia input. No matter. I enjoy all the learning I get out of it. Best regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the "Philadelphia newspaper" to the name of the poet as per Gerald Brodribb, The Croucher, p.73 : "Philadelphia at the time had a cricket poet, Ralph D. Paine, who recalled the great feats in the manner of Craig, the Surrey rimester, who sold his broadcast poems on the county grounds". It quotes 44 lines but apparently the poem is still longer because the book calls it only "a passage from the poem". Tintin (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Croucher" is a splendid book. I have had it for three years but read only bits and pieces. A limerick from Jessop's Cambridge days goes :

There was a young Fresher called Jessop

Who was pitching 'em less up and less up

'Til one of the pros

Got a blow on the nose

And said : 'In a helmet I'll dress up'

An alternate last line being : "And a man with a mop cleared the mess up". Tintin (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John - can you please take a look at this one : User_talk:Johnlp#Another_question_about_a_book Tintin (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look on Tintin's page, you'll find you and I responded in chorus at exactly the same time. We aren't the same person, are we? Johnlp 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Thanks. It is not easy to buy books from here because the postage itself will cost some 400-500 rupees. Tintin (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done ! Tintin (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I'd love to see an article about the Alresford club. I'm still researching the early 18th century and I don't have Arlott on Cricket so I suggest it would be best if you were to create the article using that book as the main source. John Arlott came from Hampshire, didn't he?

I have Alresford playing major matches from 1779, when they played Berkshire, and they were certainly eminent into the mid-1780s. Tom Taylor and RA Veck seem to have been the most famous players and, as you say, they were both first-choice for Hambledon.

One thing I've wondered about before is if the Alresford club organised the Hampshire matches on Itchen Stoke Down; rather than Hambledon Club which has always got the credit for organising all Hampshire matches? What do you think?

All the best.--BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I added some more references which all mention Alresford. I repaired the links to Tom Taylor and Richard Aubrey Veck too: I haven't written anything about the Freemantles yet. I added the club to the template and I'll put in some match details before long when I get back to the 1770s. I'm working on London and Slindon at the moment in the 1740s and 1750s.

Incidentally there is another prominent club from the late 18th century which should have an article and that is Montpelier. Apart from anything else, this is the club that was the driving force in the foundation of Surrey CCC. All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have written in the rsc thread about suicides that Ralph Barker's research proved that Richardson's death was not a suicide. What were the circumstances of his death ? Tintin (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe we can add a line or two more about his death. Tintin (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Good to see this fellow up and running. He was a great batsman and one of the "original tourists". I've added a few bits that I know of him and a couple of references. All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that story too and I think you're right that it was Lockyer. By the way, I've created a list of 19th century players in the All-England Eleven article with their CricketArchive links appended and I'm working my way through that using the CA data as a basic reference. I've deleted the ones I've already done, who are the ones "on the ship" in 1859. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. You are right about that tour and I believe there has been another. The article is not finished because my info only goes up to the 1950s. If you have details of the later tour(s), please feel free to update. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start on the overall history with History of Canadian cricket. I haven't decided yet if to develop this to cover the whole history or if to limit it to an early period and then go for more detailed season reviews afterwards, which is what I've done with the Test countries. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted ;-) I've changed it to show the right centuries. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It seems that relatively few settled in Canada in the 16th. I suppose it was trappers, fishermen and itinerant traders at first in Canada: certainly there seems to have been little of note until the 17th century. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably already know this but Google books now has books like James Pycroft's Cricket Field & Cricketiana, Lord Hawke's History of Yorkshire CCC, WG's Cricket and some articles like this Tintin (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check the author the first article at History_of_Pakistani_cricket_to_1953#References. I seem to remember seeing it somewhere as Kardar, but the author's name is mentioned in the online Wisden archive. Tintin (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tintin (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also found the right Kardar article Tintin (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in every important respect. I have added the 0 and removed the tag. It is safe to do this for UK and some US books between about 1968 and 1972, I think. You can test on isbn-check.com , or usually find the book on Amazon, Abebooks, Libray of Congress etc. by clicking on the ISBN. Best wishes, Rich Farmbrough, 11:09 20 December 2006 (GMT).