Talk:Mohammed Shami

This paragraph is presently in the article: In 5th ODI he bowled a good spell in death overs with tight line and lengh & Midlle stump Yorkers. After that cricket pundits call him Indian bowling future.^[2] I don't see mention of 5th ODI or 'tight line and lengh & Midlle stump Yorkers' on the web page.--Brenont (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this page is eligible for B Class. Can anyone tell me in which sections should this project be improved to meet the criterias of B Class? (If it has not already met it) 202.142.67.57 (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

For this article to be promoted to B Class quality the following assessment questions need to be answered.

1. Coverage and accuracy: Does the article cover all aspects of the subject reasonably well? Is this coverage accurate? Is it verifiable? There should be no original research nor any copyright violations. Is the article reasonably concise and precise? Does the article inform the reader without needing to leave the article to consult wiki links or look up terms that don't have wiki links
2. Referencing & citations: Do all the facts in the article have a source citation? Are those citations able to verify the facts in the article? Have all citation cleanup tags been properly resolved?. Have any missing or incorrect citations been found and properly cited? Are there any citations that require special access methods and are these restrictions flagged in the citation. Do all citations have the date of publication and/or access dates given. Are any archived citations viewable or valid and readable? Can you find revised citations for any archived or dead links?
3. Use of English: Is the article written in English? Is anything not in English highlighted and translated, accurately. Which particular dialect of English is used and is this flagged on the talk page? Is the English used well and does it make sense? Has the article been written from a neutral point of view? Has the Manual of Style been followed sensibly? Is the tone of the article appropriate? Is the English reasonable, restrained and objective. Does the article avoid any promotional or superlative language? Does the article follow the requirements of biographies for living people? Does the article strike a balance between all the points of view in the sources without giving excessive weight to one side or another?
4. Structure: Does the article have a lead or summary section that accurately and fairly summarizes the contents of the article? Is everything summarized in the lead section able to be verified in the body of the article, or a citation? Is the article divided into sections? Do those sections and headings make sense? Does the article follow an appropriate template?
5. Navigation: Can you read the article right through without feeling the need to follow any wiki links? But are there enough wiki links to look up anything that might not be understood? Can you find the article from related articles, such as those mentioned in the footers? Do other articles link to this article? Can you locate a particular part of the article from the table of contents?
6. Supporting materials: Does the article include supporting materials such as photographs and information boxes, as well as tables of relevant statistics and performances?

If you can answer all the questions above with a positive answer, then you can complete the checklist in the banner. Once the checklist is competed the banner will change from C class to B class. However, you should create an account and make those changes as a registered user, rather than edit the assessment banners from anonymous IP addresses. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, but I, being a new user, don't know how and where to change. I'll be glad if you kindly assist me in this context. Note that, this page is already rated A class in two sections and GA class in the 'WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games' section.

In the last 10 days, the History of this talk page reveals it has been subject to, what I consider, vandalism by anonymous users to misleadingly upgrade this page to GA status. The changes made have been done so without explanation and have taken the article from being C class to GA class without evidence of going through the proper nomination and review process by a registered user. According to the nomination process, only registers users (those with an account) can review an article and change it to GA class. For more information please read the assessment process article where you will find more information about a B-class assessment. What needs to happen is that the B-Class checklist needs to be completed inside the WikiProject banners at the top of the page. You will only see this checklist on B- and C-class articles. Legitimate GA-class articles will have nomination and assessment sections. Before you edit this article further, I would recommend you log on and create an account. That way your contributions are properly attributed to you as a user, rather than an anonymous IP address that might change or be shared by other contributors. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your postings on talk pages. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

PS: This article has now been downgraded to C-class and I have added the checklist questions to the banners. Answer each parameter "yes" or "no" as appropriate. I have also added the WikiProject Crime banner on account of the criminal charges and corruption accusations. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am trying to elaborate the article as much as I can. I'll be glad if you help and assist me in this context. Can you give me any suggestions about how to improve the article we are talking about to promote it?

I'd suggest a total rewrite. We need a lot less of the minutia about the IPL, less sections, less over-detail and think about the over-arching themes. There are quotes with missing citations and plenty that needs proper prose citations to back it up. I've started to work through. I'm usually pretty vicious when I do so and may cut stuff that could be put back if it's cited properly.

The idea it to think about what a general reader (not an IPL fan boy) would want to read if they heard Shami's name mentioned. Think about what Paula in Verona or Clive in Chattanooga would need to know - that's what's actually important, not that he bowled 131 dot balls, scored 53* or had figures of 8–2–35–3 - neither Paula or Clive would understand what any of those were without some pretty serious help. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

But, will you rewrite the sections after sections you have removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.206 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

With what? Hyperbole and fan-cruft? No, I won't do that. I won't repeat things three times or make unsubstantiated claims either. I'll remove the crap and then see if I have time to find anything useful to go in; but it needs to be properly sourced and not include hideous over=detailed recentism bollocks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

BSK, you have removed the whole IPL section. There is not a single information about 2021 IPL performance of Shami. After your continuous removal, the article has become wee. So, responsibility should be taken to rewrite the article section by section. Otherwise, what is the meaning of deletion if it is not rephrased? Can you answer? 202.142.67.206 (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

No I haven’t. It’s now a subsection as it probably should be. Once he does something notable in 2021 or the season finishes then a sentence might get added. The stuff currently there is padding. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary: BSK, if you regularly follow IPL 2021, then you should know that the campaign of Punjab Kings have already been ended, so have been Shami's. Anyway, although I have reverted your edit, but I have not reverted the whole section. I have not changed the sub-section of IPL into section. It has remained unaltered since your last edit. Again I have removed some of the unnecessary, hyperbole, fan-cruft words like- ace, unaided etc to make the article neutral. I have also cited source after some sentences. For instance, a site has been cited for the controversial sentence--- "That spell of Shami will surely be vividly reminisced as one of the greatest super over spells in the history of Indian Premier League." The numbers of wicket taken, average etc have also been updated and corrected. Even, I have not added Shami's performance in 2021 IPL as per your remark. The same has been done to the T20 Cricket section. So, please don't rollback and revert my edit. If you find any other lines or words to be exuberant, then remove only that particular word and not the whole section or better at first discuss it in the talk page with other editors. Ok, BSK, this is all for now. I have n't written this in the edit summary due to the word limit present there. Anyway, looking forward to hearing from you. Have a great time. 202.142.67.206 (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you're trying to do is add poorly written, hyperbolic and over-detailed stuff to this page time and time again. We need to summarise not add boring, routine, day to day details.

There are significant issues with sentences such as "Shami enjoyed his first experience with the pink ball and said that the pink ball had more swing to offer than the season ball. It wobbled a lot under the lights and also reversed a tad bit." and fragments such as "by a whooping price of 4.8 crores INR", "After being retained in the 2018 IPL Mega Auction by 3 crores INR", and "In the both 2016 and 2017 IPL, he featured in only 8 matches and took 5 wickets." We have to write in an encyclopaedic manner; none of these is suitable.

Statements such as "So, injury, lack of form and gametime had never really allowed Shami to find his mojo in white ball cricket in his second IPL franchise, Delhi Daredevils, which he later unarguably found in Punjab Kings." are being backed up by a list of statistics and not by anything remotely qualitative. That's not OK - it's obvious synthesis and original research; we simply can't have that. (to clarify: this is just the start; I could add twenty more issues I have with wording to this list without breaking sweat - and that's before we get to him being "unique" because he is "neither a swing bowler nor a hit-the-deck-hard bowler. He is somewhere in between". Err, you mean like the majority of half-decent county bowlers then?). And Punjab where Kings XI until the end of the 2020 season, so he can't have signed for Punjab Kings in 2018. I know nothing about the IPL apparently, but I know that.

I'll rescue what I can from your edits later on - I don't want to throw it all away. But we need to do better. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, BSK, please rescue something from my edit. It required a huge span of time for doing those edits, especially the new section one. But what I wrote in the new section you removed was only a summary of the reliable cited source. So, please restore that section and at least some parts of my edit as soon as possible. Please BSK, it's my earnest request to you. Thank you.202.142.67.206 (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

As per WP:NOTDIARY the article should give a summary of his career, not a blow-by-blow account of every match. I find that a lot of the text being added sounds like a fan-site or blog page and should use more neutral language than constant superlatives. Spike 'em (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the over use of lengthy and, frankly, quite tedious quotations from the IPL section. They don't add anything other than padding. I'm generally of the view we should cut down the lengthy one in the early life section as well, but those quotes at least add context.

I've also removed the "he's played XX matches and taken YY wickets" paragraph. This sort of thing is very, very dangerous and will be hostage to not being updated (which given that I had to update the stats in the infobox...). There might be some scope to using a simple two or three column table floated off to the right in the section to list season - matches - wickets possibly. This gets done on football articles all the time, so there may be some scope here. That would have more chance of being updated regularly than a paragraph will

similar things go for some of the records - two, I think, of which I removed because they aren't really that notable and will change either regularly or very soon

and I've removed the copyvio from the domestic section. That'll be the second clear and obvious copyvio I've had to remove from this article Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Soutut: there's a possible table layout that I think would work at User:Blue Square Thing/sandbox. Take a look. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have viewed the table and replied in the talk page of the anonymous user.

Now, should we remove the template?

@Soutut: do you mean the ones at the top of the article? Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing:, yes, the template that shows 'the article has multiple issues...' At Least, I think some of the points should be removed. Anyway, can you please add a few images to this article? For eg, you may add one image of Shami in PBKS jersey, one in test jersey. I am telling you to do because I don't know how to add an image. I even don't know whether adding an image breaches copyright issues. Good luck. Soutut (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite ready for removing the tags yet - I've not even begun to look at the international section yet (seriously, not even read it) and I have some thinking to do about that - I'll post a to do list as a new section later on perhaps.

In terms of photos, I looked earlier and there doesn't appear to be anything, which is a shame. There has been some joy using screenshots from YouTube videos which have been licensed in the right way - images such as the one used at the top of the Bumrah article (click it and then go through to the commons and you'll see the license I mean). If you can find the videos I can manage the screenshots - you're quite right that there are serious copyright issues associated with using images. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You mean, I have to share the link of a youtube video showing Shami. Have you done the same (taking screenshot) while inserting the image of Eden Gardens? Also, please have a look at the tables created.Soutut (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

So long as the video is released under the right license, yes, that might work. The Eden Gardens image was uploaded by someone else and appears to be copyright free, as does the image we have of Shami in the infobox. I seem to have found one useful image which I think is OK, but if there are handy videos then you're more likely to know about them than I am - so links should work.

I'll come back to the tables at some point. I think they need to be thought about a bit more, but they're best left as they are for now I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have found a photo of Shami in PBKS jersey in a youtube video, but I can't post the link. Please tell me the solution. Albeit, I don't know if there is copyright issues with that video.Soutut (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, they block links don't they. What's the title of the video? Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing:,'Can be irritating, Mohammed Shami on Bio Bubble...बायो बबल से 'परेशान हो सकते हैं, खिलाड़ी'- this is the title. Watch 1 mins 20 sec of this video. There you will find the image.202.142.67.248 (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this video contains a genuine image of Shami in the jersey of Punjab Kings. 'Mohammed Shami पर Pakistan में भी चर्चा, क्रिकेट खिलाड़ियों और नेताओं ने क्या-क्या कहा? (BBC Hindi)' - this can also be seen. Soutut (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I am requesting the other users to assist me to expand the section I have mentioned in the headline. I am also requesting to promote this article to B Class. 202.142.81.43 (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I notice that various unregistered editors have repeatedly edited the WikiProject banners and removed this article from membership of WikiProject Crime without explaining why in their edit summaries. This article's membership of that WikiProject is due to accusations of crimes made against Mohammed Shami and those facts, alone, make this article of interest to WikiProject Crime. The presence of the WikiProject Crime banner merely indicates the project is interested in this article and is not intended to imply anything about the reputation of the subject in any way. Those accusations also do not make this article a Criminal Biography, otherwise a different banner would be used. The WikiProject banners form part of the overall quality assessment of this article and any unjustified changes or removals affect the integrity of the assessment process. Also, I would note that Wikipedia is not censored and the accusations made against Shami are a matter of public record. Because this is a biography of a living person of a public figure you can complain about the article. If you feel strongly enough to be offended by these facts or wish to suppress drawing attention to them, thus wanting to remove the crime banner, please explain yourself here, first, before attempting to remove the crime banner, again. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

My dear Cameron Dewe (talk), you are forgetting that this is the article of CRICKETER Mohammed Shami. If the other users (especially my fellow INDIANS) agree to my point of view, then please support me in this context. Thank you.

Supporting 202.142.81.12 (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

So? It's entirely possible for someone to be of interest to multiple wikiprojects. There is no reason to remove the banner. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, Blue Square Thing (talk)202.142.67.206 (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Which part of my comment do you disagree with? That it's possible for someone to be of interest to multiple wikiprojsects or that there is no reason to remove the banner? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The banner should be removed. I am supporting the two unregistered users who commented here before.09:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)09:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)09:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.81.30 (talk)

Why should it be removed? Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to make sense of this - but it's complex and I need some time to look into the details of the whole thing and find a tonne of reliable sources. I think there are two allegations - firstly one of match fixing and then one of domestic abuse and so on. They seem to have occurred at a similar time. Can anyone shed any light on these - and if there is anything else we need to include in this section? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The following sources state that Shami is a fast bowler:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/mohammed-shami-481896

https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/profile/mohammed-shami/28994.html

These sources are unquestionably and unarguably reliable. They also state that Shami was born in UP, whereas, two of the sources cited for fast-medium in the main page of the article show the birth place to be Jonagar. Is this the demo of reliability of the sources arguing Shami to be a fast-medium bowler?

Also, if the speed of 145-150 kmph is considered to be fast-medium, then what is the speed range of fast bowling?Soutut (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I am citing another source in your favour, Soutut (talk),

http://www.cricmetric.com/playerstats.py?player=Mohammed%20Shami&role=bowler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.248 (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There are at least four sources which state fast-medium - the three I cited in the article and CricBuzz also has him as f-m. CricInfo has issues with updating its profiles at times, so although I tend to think it's reliable I'm not entirely convinced if I'm honest. I've also seen his described, at least in his early career, as medium paced. The BCCI isn't a source I've used before, but Cricket Australia tends to be very reliable indeed when it comes to things like height, styles and roles.

Perhaps a note added to the profile would be best - I would stick with fast-medium as the descriptor for now but it's reasonable to add a descriptive note as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

How can a bowler who bowls persistently at a speed of 145-150 kmph be called fast-medium? Isn't it hilarious and ridiculous? Also, we (I and Soutut) have put forward our references to show that Shami is unarguably a fast bowler. You too have done it. We have proved your links to be non-reliable, as they contain flaws, like the birthplace of Shami. If they are reliable, then we should consider the birth place of Shami to be Jonagar, Bengal and add the fact to the template. Then, the whole early life career in this article should be changed. Now, just as you have proved the flaws of your references, you should do the same. Note that, all the cricket scorecard in wikipedia contain ESPN's reference and not Cricbuzz's or such ones'.202.142.67.248 (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, so lets waste time and energy picking this apart as well.

• firstly, does he bowl at 145-150? The source that is used in the article lead says he bowled that day at 140 consistently. That was in 2013. 8 years ago, and he's older now - and, I believe, changed his run up quite considerably in the interim. Honest question: does he still bowl that fast throughout a spell?
• beware of descriptions that say "fast bowler" in prose; that is a common term for anyone moderately quick - as is pace bowler etc... I think I'd want to see something else to qualify that;
• now, on sources. Yes - many of them are terrible. His IPL profile tells us he played two IPL matches in 2009. No other sources says he did - CricInfo tells us his T20 debut was 2010, for example. So do we not believe anything from that source? I suspect the way that his name has been used differently over the years may have something to do with the differences, but I could be wrong. Hey, we could also get into how Mohammed is spelled differently on different profiles. Does that make sources wrong in their entirety? Sure, the birth place thing is a crap thing to get wrong, but it happens all the time - CricInfo had Jordan Cox birth place and Ollie Robinson's middle name wrong for ages and still lists Alex Blake as a medium pace bowler (as does Cricket Metric btw - it's wrong: he's bowled off breaks exclusively for the last three or four seasons); it happens
• bear in mind that I twice reverted a change from fast to fast-medium on 29 October because of the sourcing; it was only after an IP provided a source that I looked further and found others to back that up; I may well have reverted previous attempts to change it as well. I tend to.

Can you provide some sources to say how fast he actually bowls these days? That might merit changing the description to fast perhaps, but I think we'll need the note left on anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing more references to bowing at 140 in 2013 btw, and him being described as seeming faster than he was at that point - his ODI debut match for example.

I've also changed to statement that he was born at Sahaspur to that he grew up there. I've not seen anywhere that he was born in the village - this article, for example, says he "belongs to Joya city".

His birth date is also fluid by the way - some references say March, others September. So sourcing in general is a bit of an issue over this sort of thing it seems. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

An editor removed this section, calling it irrelevant. I don't agree with him, as it was the first pink ball match in the Indian soil. So, it has a huge significance. Shami was a part of the playing XI. I think this section should be restored. The other editors should comment here and convey their opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.248 (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, I want the experienced users and editors to create the 'Bowling Style' section. (It was Blue Square Thing's plan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.248 (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It's utterly irrelevant. He played in a pink ball match. Wow. Amazing. Fantastic. Or, as 99.9% of readers would suggest, absolutely boring as heck. The match wasn't even a first-class match for heavens sake Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

{{ping|Blue Square Thing}}, I think the only solution is to describe the fact in a single sentence in a nutshell. Also, the anonymous user, you should wait, because BST always keeps his word of honour. He will surely add the section soon. --Soutut (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't use the nowiki tags - I used them show you the syntax to copy. So, if you go @Soutut: that happens - do you see?

I'm really not sure him playing in that match is relevant at all, even in a single sentence. It's really not very notable - a club match where they tried something out? Nah. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll add this now. It's a list of jobs that I think need to be worked on, with some suggestions and requests. Some are major, others are minor:

• the domestic abuse section needs a look at as it's really confusing and there is a need for clarification. Does it make sense as it is? I think the case is still ongoing, but I'm not sure of the exact details;
• I'm not sure whether the online abuse bit is in the right place - it might belong in his international career I guess?
• the records section can probably be turned into prose and/or combined with some sort of statistics overview;
• that probably means we need to look at the tables that have been added, perhaps using Adam Gilchrist, Paul Collingwood and similar articles as a starting point. There's probably a bit much table use right now, but there's a base to work from;
• Playing style section - there are lots of fantastic articles on CricInfo that have the potential to be really helpful
• the international section needs to be looked at. I think there's too much repetition in this as it stands and it doesn't really tell the story. I'm fairly convinced we need a single International career section (as used at Gilchrist and Collingwood), with sub-sections. This will allow us to say just the once, for example, that he was injured in 2015. I'm not entirely sure what the sub-sections of this will end up being, but they might be:
  • early international career
  • 2015 World Cup and injuries - this might be two sections
  • 2019 onwards

The naming of those isn't right, but as three or four key sections to build around they make some sense to me; it might be that there end up being more sections as it gets worked on. Spike 'em may have a view on this?

• images - if there are any worth adding;
• sources need checking for unreliable/tabloid ones. I don't know all the sources being used - perhaps Soutut and the 202 IP editor could check through all the websites and news sites being used - are any of them very tabloid in style? Or otherwise not reliable?
• alternative sources - I'm very aware that I've relied quite a lot on CricInfo. I know we have some other sources in the article, but are the more of those that are easy to find - again, Soutut, you may be in the best position to find these along with 202;
• sourcing needs details such as author added; this includes checking for duplicate refs. I'll probably try and do this one evening UK time so that I can work through all of them in one go - I might take out the cite templates when I do so that we have consistency, I'll see;

Those are the main areas to consider I think - and then the lead will, of course, need reworking a bit to reflect the article as a whole. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the following link is more convenient to verify the tabular data of Shami's IPL performance- https://www.iplt20.com/teams/punjab-kings/squad/94/mohammad-shami#:~:text=Mohammed%20Shami%20has%20revived%20his,tag%20of%20INR%204.8%20crore.&text=He%20had%20a%20fine%20run,19%20wickets%20from%2014%20games.

This link can be used to create the Bowling Style section- https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/aakash-chopra-how-mohammed-shami-flipped-the-switch-on-his-bowling-1172530

Also, the discussion of ESPN in the T20I section can be utilised in this context. Soutut (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing, your idea of the International section is superb, but will it not mess up with the three formats? Anyway I think it can be divided into the following sections:

1. Initial Years- This may include Shami's debut in international cricket and his performances before the 2015 World Cup. Albeit, very less amount of information is currently present inside the article regarding this.

2. 2015 World Cup- A section with this name is already created in the article.

3. Return from Injury / Rejuvenation of Cricket Career- This may include Shami's return in international cricket after his injury, his omission from the playing XI of Champions Trophy and T20 World Cup, his performances in the 2018 England tour and the most significant moment of his career- The Newzeland series.

4. 2019 World Cup and onwards- This may include Shami's performance in 2019 Cricket World Cup and the international matches he has played since then.

Along with these, Shami's performances in the World Test Championship matches- like the Australia tour, where Shami suffered an injury while batting should be included in the respective places.--Soutut (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we'll need to see how the international bit goes. It might work, it might not. Thanks for the suggested sub-sections. I'm not entirely sure when I'll get to it, but I will. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've removed the Injury section, this should be merged into the ongoing career section if it is to appear. I also don't agree with the merging of his career figures across formats : it does not seem to be something done by other sites (except possibly doing a statsguru search on CI). Spike 'em (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• The Records section is creeping towards a list of WP:TRIVIA. We should only list widely reported / notable achievements. Also, he took 29 matches to reach 100 Test wickets and does not appear on the cricinfo list being used as a source. Spike 'em (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• His favourite actor, colour and animal are utterly irrelevant, no matter how many non-reliable sources you can find to state them. Spike 'em (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for these Spike 'em - much appreciated and I tend to agree. Records (and stats) sections always worry me a little on principle as they tend to get a bit manufactured. We'll see how that goes I guess. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

An unregistered user asked me to intervene on his behalf about the persistent removal of the injury sections and others. After grasping the matter, I have made an edit to this page. I think the removal of the injury section is justifiable, albeit portions of it can be restored later in other sections. However, I have restored the removal of the parts belonging to the Outside Cricket section. I think as the name of the section suggests, a little information outside cricket can be included. I shall later look out for a more reliable link. For the record section, I have restored one record and cited a different source which accurately verifies the matter. The best will be if Blue Square Thing, you interfere the matter and solve it. Gracias.Soutut (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

How on earth is his favourite colour and holiday destinaton encyclopedic content and not utter trivia?

According to the cricinfo page that was being referenced the fastest Indian bowlers to 100 wickets are: Ashwin, Prasanna, Kumble, Gupte , Chandrasekar, Ojha, Mankad, Jadeja and Bumrah; Shami doesn't appear on the list.

Also ahead of Shami are : Kapil Dev, Pathan, Bedi, Doshi & Harbhajan, making him at best 15th fastest to reach this milestone.

Yes, the fact is true. In reality, Shami is third fastest Indian pacer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.248 (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, he's now 4th behind Bumrah in that list as well. Given his low position in the overall list, I'm of the opinion that this is just trivia rather than a meaningful record.Spike 'em (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Where did the ip editor ask you to intervene, as I see nothing on your talk page? Are you sure you are not editting as both logged in and logged out, in which case you are in excess of the 3 revert rule? I still do not believe that this is valid content rather than mindless trivia. Spike 'em (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I found itand withdraw that comment. Reinstating most of my original comment as it seems that the socking accusation was correct. Spike 'em (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Favourite colour / city / pet are mindless trivia, and directly contravene WP:NOTGOSSIP, which is a Wikipedia policy : Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. Spike 'em (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

'An editor has been continuously reverting my edit to this article. As I have found you to be one of the active editors of the article, I want you to intervene on my behalf. You can grasp the matter by going through the page history. Thank you in advance for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.248 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let me look into the matter.Soutut (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)'- this is our conversation in my talk page. All right?Soutut (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Why do you think that his favourite colour / animal / holiday destination, sourced to what looks like a non-WP:RS, is encyclopedic content and not in direct contravention of WP:NOTGOSSIP? Spike 'em (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I am the unregistered user. Soutut and Spike em, please pardon me for carrying on the conversation in Soutut's talk page rather than here. I thought that some information outside cricket career of a cricketer could be included in an article. That's why, I added the stuff. Anyway, sorry again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.248 (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

notable details of his life outside cricket is fine, but what you've added is both trivial and is sources to unreliable sources. It should be removed. Spike 'em (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I see, I will not make such edits further. I promise. Anyway, I have found Shami's performance in the Bangladesh tour to be missing in this article. It was unarguably one of the rejuvenating moments of his career. I think it should be added. Perhaps Soutut can add the stuff better. Anyway, I other editors' opinions in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.248 (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Does this mean you accept that we should remove the triva about favourite actor / animal/ colour? Spike 'em (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the tour of Bangladesh is missing in this article. I will add it soon. Soutut (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Spike 'em ([[User talk:Spike 'em|talk], actually I am a novice to Wikipedia. So, I think the experienced ones like you can decide the matter. I just thought that a little bit information outside cricket could have been included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.248 (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Spike 'em, I don't know whether you know the fact that India is traditionally a land of spinners. So, it's normal and natural that most of the Indian bowlers to fastest 100 test wickets are spinners. In that sense, it's not an insignificant record to be the 4th fastest Indian bowler to 100 test wickets. Also, when Shami achieved the feat, he was the 3rd fastest and that is suggested by the source. We may write that currently he is the 4th quickest fast bowler to...

While watching yesterday's World Cup match between India and Afghanistan, I noticed that the TV Channels describe Shami as right-arm fast bowler in the TV Screen. Btw, while searching Shami's education in the Google, it showed 'Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University'. I don't think this fact to be trivial and I want it to be added to the article. Btw, Shami claimed his career-best T20 figures yesterday against Afghanistan, but as the tournament is currently ongoing, I think the fact should be added in the prose section of the article only after the event ends. Blue Square Thing and Spike 'em, I want your comments and opinions regarding this three matters. Also, I'd like to request BST to view the two videos, whose titles are provided in the 'Can this project be promoted to B Class?' section.

I have studied some sources about Shami's performance in the Bangladesh tour. I have found that Shami reached his career best ratings and rankings after that series. India's first pink ball test match also took place during the second match of the series and Shami was included in that match. This facts are worth-mentioning. To be honest, I am quite busy this week, but I will add the facts soon.

Thank you. --Soutut (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

9 Indian pace bowlers have reached 100 wickets, so being just above halfway in that cohort is hardly significant enough to mention; I'd still be be against including it if he was 4th fastest among all Indian bowlers. Not every minor piece of trivia needs to be included in the article. Spike 'em (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, please convey your opinion regarding the other matters.Soutut (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The stuff recently added goes against all of WP:NOTDIARY (overly-detailed/match-by-match coverage of his career), WP:NOTSTATS (many lists of unexplained statistics) and WP:NOTMIRROR (all of the stats are lifted straight from cricinfo). Also you should not put references in the section header, there is probably an MOS restriction against that too. Please edit this down, as I feel if I do it it will be rather swingeing. Spike 'em (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Stats removed per the agreement that, iirc, Lugnuts brokered at WT:CRIC ages ago. The whole international section needs a total rewrite anyway - I'll get there eventually. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Refs in the lead are slightly dubious, but I'm happy with a few for now to support claims that otherwise I'd removed as uncited. I'm happy to leave them there for now until we can get this whole thing into a form that we can remove the tags at the top. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking more about MOS:HEAD, which says section headings (rather than the lead section itself) should Not contain citations or footnotes, which some of the stats sections added yesterday did have. Spike 'em (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see - didn't even notice those tbh. The total lack of any even vague attempt to add prose to place them in context is a majot flag for me in general :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

My dear Spike 'em and Blue Square Thing, the problem of references at the header would have been fixed without removing the stats section. Blue Square Thing, could you please explain me why have you removed the whole section just remarking it to be out of context? A lots of articles of cricketers have a seperate section for stats only. If asked, I'm ready to cite their names here. Anyway, for now, I shall add only a single stats table at the end of each formats. Please response. Michri michri (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I already explained it above and in the edit summary - see this RfC for the detailed arguments. Feel free to show me a whole bunch of articles with similar sections. I'll quite happily look at them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion clearly states that "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles. There does, however, seem to be a pretty clear agreement from most participants that swathes of numbers or lists of awards, empty of content or context, are not appropriate for Wikipedia". By the way, I have a query to you, which I am posting in your talk page as it is not related to this article. Please don't ignore. Thanks, Blue Square Thing. --Michri michri (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

You are correct. That's what it says. That's why I removed the tonne of no context stats you added. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2021

Yes, Blue Square Thing

Now I can understand what was going wrong with the stats table. Btw, then why some articles like Virat Kohli, Adam Gilchrist etc have a separate section for stats itself?

There is still too much incidental recording of match figures being added. This should be a summary of his career with exceptional performances noted, not a blow-by-blow account of every single innings. Also quite a lot of WP:DUPLINKS. Spike 'em (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. Spike 'em (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Spike 'em But the fact that Shami took 7 wickets against Bangladesh is notable as it led him to reach his career-best rankings.Michri michri (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP. Here is my reply. And talk in proper language.Michri michri (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You told me to discuss on talk page, ignoring the fact that I had mentioned it twice here already in the past 24 hours. The article should summarise and give context to his career, not just be a list of "He did this, then he did this, then he did this". YOu are right: there are lots of cricket articles that have similar lists of performances. They also go against guidelines and could do with a huge overhaul, but sadly there are more editors keen on adding info that makes articles difficult to read than there are ones trying to edit such screeds of text down into something readable. Spike 'em (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

But is not the 7 wicket feat a notable one? And the articles like Virat Kohli and MS Dhoni are the burning examples I think.Michri michri (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they need to be severely edited.Spike 'em (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Spike 'em, please answer my question and if possible, kindly fix the dubious and repeated links.Michri michri (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyediting might be necessary but I don't see a 'fan POV' so I have removed that template. 182.77.127.98 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: Why do we need the section on Shami being trolled? It has no effect on his career and this happens all the time with every sportsplayer. Even with Shami this has happened before... That's why I think this section should be removed. AnM2002 (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

despite what Michri days, this article is still overly detailed and there is too much "he took 6 wickets, then he took 7 wickets..." rather than offering any long-term assessment of his career. If I wanted a list of his match performances, if do a Cricinfo search. I also think that the graphs add nothing to the article. If you really think this is a good article, then fine, I will stop reading the warnings, butt it does not stop them being valid. Spike 'em (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Spike 'em, whenever you find any flaw in the article, please correct them as far as practicable. Also, the stats tables are necessary in making an assessment of Shami’s career, while the graphs 📊 added by me do nothing but act as compliment to the written text.

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sddassddas.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Shami and Kumar.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: Please figure out what is going wrong before you save any more edits. You have added 13 extra infoboxes today (as well as plenty of other random stuff) and I will just keep reverting your edits each time you add the faulty html. This is in the realms of WP:DE. Spike 'em (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Spike 'em, please tell me how I can get rid of the problem. Tbh, I'm now in the most inconvenient predicament in the true sense of the term. Please Spike'em add the image (graph), please, this a little request from me to you. And yes, my class has ended just now. CheersMichri michri (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how you are editing or why the extra infobox is appearing. Try previewing your edit or review the changes to the page contents before you save. Spike 'em (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Spike 'em, ok, I'll try to fathom out the matter before editing, but please add the image, a lot of hard work is associated with it. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)