Statistics are recorded for each player during a match, and aggregated over a career. At the professional level, statistics for Test cricket, one-day internationals, and first-class cricket are recorded separately. However, since Test matches are a form of first-class cricket, a player’s first-class statistics will include his Test match statistics – but not vice versa. Nowadays records are also maintained for List A and Twenty20 limited over matches. These matches are normally limited over games played domestically at the national level by leading Test nations. Since one-day internationals are a form of List A limited over matches, a player’s List A statistics will include his ODI match statistics – but not vice versa.
Batsmen who are not required to bat in a particular innings (due to victory or declaration) are not considered “Not Out” in that innings. Only the player/s who have taken to the crease and remained there until the completion of an innings, are marked “Not Out” on the scorecard. For statistical purposes, batsmen who retire due to injury or illness are also deemed not out , while batsmen who retire for any other reason are deemed out , except in exceptional circumstances (in 1983 Gordon Greenidge, not out on 154, departed a Test match to be with his daughter, who was ill and subsequently died – he was subsequently deemed not out the only such decision in the history of Test cricket).
Part of the ESPN-STAR network, STAR Cricket is a 24-hour cricket channel targeting Indian audiences owned by STAR TV and Fox International Channels. A channel showcasing first-class cricket action from around the globe, it broadcasts live and prerecorded international and regional cricket events as well as programming customised for the Indian audience, including cricket news update, magazine and reality shows. It is the spin-off cricket sports channel of STAR Sports.
(also, see Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Sports results for a bit on what has prompted these comments)
Woohoo! 😉 Sorry for having caused so much bother with these articles – on the amount of bad publicity it’s given WP:Cricket, it could be argued that the whole thing should perhaps be tossed in the big deletion dustbin. 😉 Now that it is in the Wikipedia database, however, I suppose we need to decide (really, honestly, no three lines of discussion and get it over with) what to do with these articles. It’s perhaps a bit stupid to take it here since it’s mainly me and jguk who edits these articles, but as they’re relevant to cricket and I’d value all opinions, I’m going to put it here.
Personally, I say we need to merge them – I know jguk disagrees, but IMO we’ve repeated so many times over that we’re going to merge them, and in any case a sporting match is utterly non-notable out of its context within the season – a bit like a concert is non-notable out of its tour (wow. I’m sounding like a deletionist). The question then becomes – how? Any friendly admins willing to help with the final stage? Or are we just going to defend these woefully inadequate (standing on their own) part-articles ad absurdum? It just seems so pointless to create more and more work for ourselves when we know they’re going to be AfDed again and again and again.
Also, I doubt this is a good method to start the 2005-06 seasons with – either we should write the match reports as parts of single competitions, or we should give a toss about the mirror sites and use the method that jguk started the 2005 season with last year (preceding the part-articles with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket), or we should use subst after every match and store the part-articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket namespace (not sure what this would achieve, apart from ease of editing for people who don’t get transclusion – but if we keep good enough lists of the relevant part-articles, which is done anyway, then it would basically be almost the same amount of work as the current method).
Anything else that ought to be done? Sectioning the team pages into months, and also rewriting the lead-in and weaving that into the article (because at the moment it might not be entirely clear what competition each match belongs to, nor its context within the season). A bit of a language and NPOV clean-up? Sam Vimes , 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think you sound like a mergist! I reckon the content should be merged. Apart from anything, we currently have two sets of articles that look funny (the season articles and the match articles). All the articles should be subst’ed and then streamlined: I am happy to do some of this work if I have the time. I think then that the match articles themselves should be deleted. This is mainly because I can’t think where to redirect them. On the other hand, I guess they could be redirected to the generic 2005 English cricket season article, or the relevant section of that. If WP:Cricket wants to get a better reputation, we have to do something with these. We can’t just ignore community consensus: people don’t want these articles on their own. Hell, I don’t want them on their own. September 2005 (UTC)