Template talk:Infobox cricketer

Medal templates, hosts and the WTC

I've started a discussion at WT:CRIC about an issue with this that is worth trying to find consensus over. It's more likely to get replies there Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Addition of batting strike rate

I think batting strike rate is an imporant statistic for a cricketer (especially a batter) and must be added to the template to give an appropriate representation of their career. Can this be added to the template? Arjunremember (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we need fewer stats, not more. Spike 'em (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

For an awful lot of cricket's history it would be impossible to calculate a strike rate for a batter. Certainly for anyone who played before the 1970s, and I would think after that it won't be entirely reliable either. And then we have the problem with too many lines in the infobox anyway, with statistics which are massively out of date or wrong, and with the problem of having to retroactively fill strike rates for 20,887 articles (that's how many have runs1 as a parameter as of 1 June 20225. There's also an argument that could be made that it's only become an important statistic in the last 20 or so years really.

If you'd like to suggest what you'd remove from the infobox to make room for something new, feel free Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey thanks the info! This is my first time so do bare with my lack of knowledge on the process.

I think regarding strike rate information availability, code could be written to update articles on strike rate from ESPN cricinfo if it is available, and if not, then the strike rate is not added.

regarding the clutter in the info box, I think maybe information on domestic teams a player played for could be shortened to just the one from their country’s main domestic circuit (i.e Ranji for India, grade cricket for Australia, etc.). Historically players mostly played domestic cricket within the country, and only recently are players playing for a lot of domestic league teams around the world which is maybe not relevant in the info box and can be seen in the domestic career section.

similarly, only the first and last played international game can be kept regardless of format instead of the first and last in each format, as most players are not multi format players and might have only played a couple games in certain formats, making it a bit irrelevant. Arjunremember (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Batting strike rate isn't the most important thing, so shouldn't be added. Infoboxes are for summaries of key information and adding the strike rate for each form of cricket is unnecessary clutter. If anything, we should remove some stuff like catches rather than adding more things. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

None of that is bad as such in terms of suggestions, but there's still going to be way too much in the infobox. And too much of what we have is just plain wrong anyway. Personally I'd favour matches, runs, wickets, main teams and that's about it. But we'll never got consensus for that, so we seem to be stuck with what we have.

Can I suggest you take a list of players from a team that you enjoy and work through them, taking a look at what's in the infobox and updating stuff when it's needed? Check in when you run into a problem. It would be interesting to see if you have a different view at that point Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person has an RfC

Template:Infobox person has an RfC for possible consensus regarding the removal of color from person infoboxes. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Parameter "female"

I noticed that there is a parameter "female", but it doesn't seem to change anything (displayed fields, look, categories, short desc...), and its use isn't explained in the documentation. What does it actually do? And if some gender-based parameter is needed, wouldn't it be better to have a "gender" parameter than this one which makes women the exception / special case? Fram (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it changes the national team default from the men’s team to the women’s team - so you only need to put Germany, say, in to the parameter and the women’s team is automatically linked to. Probably if there’s anything in the female parameter. I don’t recall it doing anything else Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, the examples I saw didn't have national team participations, so this wasn't noticeable. Perhaps adding this explanation to the template doc may be useful. Fram (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

There’s probably quite a few areas where the documentation could use clearing up. I’ll see what I can do later in the week Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 February 2026

Hi. It would be neater and correct, and in line with most if not all cricket publications, if the word "side" could be amended to "team". Articles about teams are called Somewhere cricket team, not Somewhere cricket side. Team" is both correct and encyclopaedic. "Side" is tabloid-speak.

In addition, again in line with publications, could you please move "highest score" above "batting average", and "best bowling" above "bowling average". It would not only provide familiarity to readers of cricket books, it would also couple runs with highest score, and wickets with best bowling, which is logical. Averages should not intervene.

That's it. Thanks for your time. Jack (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first. See WP:TESTCASES. Changing the word "side" to "team" seems reasonable to me, but some discussion would be useful first. As for the rest of the changes, please implement them in the sandbox and show them at work on the testcases page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Teams in infobox

Hello, please see the discussion at WT:CRIC about the implications of the <!-- only include teams actually played for --> guideline next to the club1 parameter.

The proposal was raised on 16 March, and I've left it there for two weeks to see if anyone besides Spike 'em and myself should be interested. No one else has contributed, so it appears we have a sort of "silent consensus" in that there are no objections to the guideline being removed. The only significant consideration, as Spike has pointed out, is that editors must respect MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE by ensuring that a team in the box is mentioned in the body of the article. Obviously, that is something we as a project will have to manage by encouraging editors to prioritise addition of the information into the narrative, and only to the infobox if appropriate.

I think the reasons for the request have been clearly outlined, but I would just reiterate the need for consistency with WP:FOOTY in that once a player is contracted to a club or team, they are that team's player regardless of how many appearances they make.

Please ping me if you need to ask me anything. Thanks, Jack (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, can someone let me know if this can be done? It's a very simple change. Thanks, Jack (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The likely reason this hasn't been addressed is that you haven't made a proper edit request. See WP:ERW. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@BlackJack. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, voorts. ERW won't accept a template, rejecting it as a "bad name". Is there another request type? Jack (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit requests#Making requests for templates. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)