Talk:W. G. Grace/Archive 2

Latest rating

I've given this article a C-class rating, which is disappointing. The reason is that it badly lacks citations and it still contains too many of the tired old "stories" like the "Give Me Arthur" one which is absolutely incorrect as it is presented in this article.

After User:Dweller, User:Mattinbgn and others showed what is possible with Don Bradman, it would be nice to see the original champion brought up to FA standard too. I'll add the article to my "to-do" list but I have other priorities and will need help.

I seriously wonder if we should limit edit rights to a small group from within WP:CRIC. The biggest problem is the anecdotes and I think those should be taken right out unless an absolutely A1 source can be quoted. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that at least the best-known anecdotes should be retained, though they need to be heavily caveated. Some are very famous, and that they were attached to Grace tells us something about the man. I agree that the article needs a lot of work. In addition to the points you make, the structure is very poor. JH (talk page) 09:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the structure and I think a fresh start is definitely needed. As part of that I've archived all the old posts as there are none later than Aug 2007: an indication of how the article has been sidelined. It's something of a "sleeping giant", this one. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

End sections

I've done a complete reorganisation of the external links and especially of the book titles that were scattered around. These are all now handled as cited sources.

There is one thing that still needs doing with the cited sources that I haven't time for at the moment and isn't urgent. With several of the books given, there is no note of the publisher. These will need filling in at some point. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

1871

I don't think that the statement "1871 was arguably Grace's greatest season" needs a citation, because the statisticd to justify it immediately follow (and those statistics do have a citation). JH (talk page) 20:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Although if one of the sources does make that statement it will help to add it. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

JH (talk page) 21:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Chronological approach needed

The information in situ about his first-class and Test careers is extremely disjointed and incidental. We need to adopt a chronological approach by identifying the major events and sequences of his career and then building these into the article. I think a controversies section is definitely needed with the emphasis on his mercenary attitude and his capability to do "marvellous things within the rules". ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Regarding the chronological approach, I think that 1899 was a significant year in so many ways that there's a lot to be said for letting it retain its own paragraph. Incidently, for sources regarding WG's involvement with London County we can probably plagiarise the LC wiki article. JH (talk page) 21:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That London article is very useful. I was thinking of keeping both 1895 and 1899 separate, perhaps also 1871. For the moment, I'm just seeing how much content is needed for the main periods and then split a few more out. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WG in Monty Python and the Holy Grail

It might be a good thing to mention (even in the "honours" section?) that an old picture of WG in his later years is used as the face of God in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I don't have time to grab a cite just now, but if someone can, it's a good indication that he's not at all forgotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.52.19 (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This has already been removed from the article because it is WP:TRIVIA. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1873-74 tour

There is only one line about this tour which was not a success. I don't think it needs much more than a paragraph but I'm struggling to find a suitably concise source. --Jack | ^{talk page} 07:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Controversies" section

This edit was inappropriate. No matter how controversial a given subject is, there is never a need to segregate negative commentary off into its own section. The two points contained within that section could (and should) be incorporated into the rest of the article appropriately; for instance, while Grace's amateur status may have been controversial, it does not need to be framed in that way Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, I am in general agreement with you as I'm not comfortable myself with a controversies section. But the way to go about it is by discussion, as you are doing now, not by placing an ambiguous tag into the article which doesn't explain your thinking. As it happens, the article is being reviewed and I am already thinking of merging the gamesmanship sub-section into the approach to cricket one, but for the time being I've been focusing on his early life. By all means, merge the controversies material into whatever part you think is relevant. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow that process, but the use of cleanup tags to direct work is not usually controversial. It adds articles to the appropriate cleanup categories, which helps attract attention to them. I'll see what I can do the next time I pass. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr W G Grace Public House

Minor aspect of this article is inaccurate and out of date. At the end of section 5 Personal life, it mentions the pub named in his honour. Firstly, this changed its name to "Graces" at least 10 years ago (from memory) and no longer had Grace as the picture on the pub sign. Additionally, the pub has been closed / empty for approx the last year, and my concern is that the line in the article reads like it is encouraging people to pop in after visiting the grave? Furthermore, although the premises is currently having some major building work undertaken, am not sure however if / when it will be reopening as a public house or under what name. Should an amendment be made to state "the former public house" or something along those lines until I can get an update on what's happening Genealogy Jo (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. JH (talk page) 08:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Have amended and will update article again as/when appropriate, as I pass by it frequently. Genealogy Jo (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency in naming

I may have missed some examples, but I've inserted the periods after initials to make the article consistent with Wikipedia style and the sources. In other words, what was previously either "WG" or "W G" is now "W.G.". I believe the subject of the article should be referred to as Grace and the initials used only when he needs to be distinguished from his brothers (or when referring to a name such as the W.G. Grace hospital ward). Although G.F. Grace was known to the family as Fred, and the usage is occasionally appropriate, sources usually refer to all three brothers by their initials. I've tried to reflect this too.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

See revert note and WP:CRIC#STYLE. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The picture in the infobox says W.G. Grace, and he signed his own name W.G. Grace. But, hey, what did he know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Some editor I never heard of labeled the above "uncivil". Well, let's see... we have (1) the subject's way of spelling his own name; and (2) some supposed wikipedia "manual of style" that says he can't spell his name that way. Guess which of those two options passes the test for notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

He was not "known as W G", he was "known as W.G." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Let's please edit through discussion and consensus rather than mere reversion. I have restored most of the appropriate punctuation. My reasons follow - please discuss them rather than merely reverting. Thanks.

• WP:CRIC#STYLE does not support your point. It deals only with article naming conventions. If I have missed a pertinent section, please point it out.
• It leaves it open whether periods are used after initials in cricketers names, but as User:Baseball Bugs points out forcefully, using periods is consistent with the sources.
• It's also consistent with practice in other WP articles about cricketers with identifiable initials, e.g. R. E. Foster and C. B. Fry.
• It's consistent moreover with the countless references to match scores throughout WP cricket articles: where initials are given, there are also periods.
• Some WP cricket articles don't use periods. Those articles are out of step with general usage.
• It's particularly objectionable to omit the periods when quoting book or article titles or even quoting passages where the periods are used. This simply introduced inaccuracy.
• Generally, throughout WP, the convention is to refer to the subject of an article by his surname, and this should be done consistently here - with the exception of passages where it is necessary to make distinctions among the brothers.
• As for G.F. Grace being "universally known" as Fred, that's obviously not true, as a glance at any contemporary Wisden will show. We need to refer to the sources to see which usage has most support. What sources are you relying on?KD Tries Again (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It is evident from all you have said and done that your case is based on a disgreement with the way this article has developed in accordance with WP:CRIC#STYLE and you should therefore voice your concerns at WT:CRIC which maintains the style guide by WP:CONSENSUS. When you say that it deals only with article naming conventions, you have overlooked this point: "If using a form such as W G Grace in the body of an article, ensure that it is redirected to one of the acceptable title forms – e.g., WG Grace." This complies with WP:MOS and other site conventions: i.e., we use W. G. Grace in the article title but we do not have to use it in the body of an article. If you think the CRIC style guide is wrong, then it is up to you to raise the issue at WT:CRIC. You cannot just descend out of the blue on one article and insist that you are right and everyone in CRIC who built this article is wrong.

According to you, it is "obviously not true" that Grace's younger brother was known as Fred and you quote Wisden but you do not say which Wisden or cite a page number. For all I know you are looking at a scorecard. You may not have seen my earlier reply to you on Talk:Fred Grace so I will give you the benefit of the doubt but several of the source books listed in the WG biography refer to Fred Grace and make clear that he was generally known as such in the cricketing world. I'll give you a few examples. Simon Rae, now widely regarded as the definitive Grace biography, on pp.15–16, introduces "Fred" as the third brother to make his first-class debut and then goes on to explain that the eldest brother Edward was known all his life "by his initials", as of course was WG. Eric Midwinter, pp.86–87, writing about Fred Grace's death, uses "Fred" several times; same usage throughout the book. On p.104 of his award-winning book, Derek Birley introduces the third Grace brother and categorically states that he was "known as Fred".

I don't have a problem with you replacing some of the WGs with Grace, except where disambig is needed, and you should have noticed that I did a few of those myself on Tuesday.

Coming back to the main point of contention, the use of periods after initials, this is only required in article titles. The use in the body of articles of Grace's sobriquet in the format "WG", with no space and no period, complies with the CRIC style and there is no need to change that format. This is especially so when you have altered other forms such as MCC, which is a standard initialism like BBC or USSR (see WP:ABBR). I repeat that your problem is with WP:CRIC#STYLE and you must refer it to WT:CRIC. If a consensus there agrees with your case, we will change the style guide: we have only just updated WP:CRIN after a discussion on player notability challenged the existing guideline.

Finally, the evident co-operation between yourself and BaseballBugs, both of you completely new to cricket pages, is very suspicious given the way that he suddenly appeared on this page immediately after your edits were first challenged. Perhaps you can explain how this alliance has so quickly materialised? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Grace has been on my watchlist for awhile due to his "connection" with Monty Python and the Holy Grail. When I saw this ridiculous edit skirmish over his name, I decided to take some action. And if you resume the edit war, I will report you for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And you think your action makes WP:COMMONSENSE, of course? What is your point of getting a full protection on the article other than sheer pique because I advised you against being sarcastic? There is supposed to be a 3Rs rule and the article was only reverted once and that by its main editor. KDTA did not re-revert: he tried to selectively re-edit, which is different altogether. Sometimes I despair of this site. Finally, will you report KDTA if he "resumes the edit war"? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 06:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your personal attacks didn't bother me. I asked for protection in order to stop the edit skirmish. Both of you should lay off until or if consensus can be reached here. It's fine as it is, spelling his name the way he spelled it rather than the way some wikipedia busybodies think he should have spelled it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, I don't see anything in the link you provided which specifies that Grace's name is supposed to be spelled "WG" rather than "W.G." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This issue seems to be causing high feelings out of all proportion to its relatively low importance. It's my impression that American English is much keener on the use of full stops in abbreviations than is British English. For example Americans would usually write "Dr." where a Brit would usually write "Dr". If this is no more than a matter of national style, then Wikipedia guidelines, as I understand them, would suggest that British English is appropriate for this article. The use of initials for someone's forenames is a particular instance of abbreviation, though admittedly rather a special one. However having said that, I checked in Rae's biography (referred to above) and found that he uses "W.G.". See for examples pages xi and 17. Also Wisden uses full stops after players' initials in all its scorecards. So I'm happy to accept "W.G.", even though one often sees "WG" and I think it looks better. As for the Fred/GF issue, he was often referred to as "Fred" by his contemporaries rather than by his initials, whereas WG and EM were always known as such rather than as "William" (or "Gilbert") or "Edward". JH (talk page) 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Baseball Bugs, the reason for using "W. G." is because Grace signed his name using periods. He has seen a facsimile of Grace's signature in the article's infobox image. Well, according to the "Wikipedia busybodies", sources have to be WP:SECONDARY and not WP:PRIMARY, which a signature certainly is. Citing a signature as a source amounts to WP:OR so the contribution of Baseball Bugs to all of this really has not been in any way helpful and I suggest KDTA notes this before he talks about any more "forceful points" being made by his ally.

John is of course correct about the use of periods as you see these in some sources, spaces in others or a simple "WG" elsewhere. As far as WP:MOS is concerned, it is only necessary to use the periods in the article title. Use in the bodies of articles is up to the editors concerned and, at some point in the past, CRIC decided to adopt its current relaxed policy which can be changed if the consensus shifts.

I would remind KDTA that my edit summary when I reverted his original edits were essentially because of errors he introduced into the article by altering the MCC initialism and his mistake about Fred Grace. It is always easier to revert and begin again than try and work with text containing errors. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The "primary source" argument is pretty desperate. Also, the picture itself, which was produced by a studio somewhere, also says "W.G. Grace". So there's your secondary source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(quote)He was not "known as W G", he was "known as W.G." (unquote) Try saying that aloud and see what it sounds like. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 10:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a few points:

• I am still unable to see any consensus at WP:CRIC#STYLE (least of all in the passage you quote) which states that periods should not be used after players' initials in the body of articles. I'd ask you show me the relevant passage in the style guide. All it says (that I can see) is that the article's creator should decide whether to use periods after initials in the title. Someone made that decision for this article - there is no directive in the style guide that we should depart from that in the text, especially as it would be a departure from any of the sources (easily seen from the improper removal of the periods even when quoting from sources which use them). If there was such any such consensus as you suggest, many WP cricket articles defy it, and I've already given examples. It hardly follows, therefore, that I am descending out of the blue, etc, etc, although even if I were, I'd refer to WP:BEBOLD.
• I'd like to assume good faith, but when you say "you do not say which Wisden or cite a page number" are you suggesting that Wisden never refers to G.F. Grace by his initials, or are you just saying you don't know? Anyone who has seen a Wisden knows that use of initials rather than first names is general practice. Given your contributions to WP cricket articles, I am boggled that this is a controversial point. But in any case, as long as his initials appear in the article, I don't really care if he's called "Fred" here and there.
• The claim that sources "have to be WP:SECONDARY and not WP:PRIMARY" is bold but false. Have a quick look at WP:ABOUTSELF [[1]]. But in any case, as JH indicates, you'll be hard put to find a good secondary source which uses "WG" and not "W.G.". I have several biographies of the man, and have never seen it. I'll post specific references if you insist, but try as I might I can't make myself believe you really think books about him dispense with periods.
• Please don't insinuate that Baseball Bugs is some kind of sock puppet. I haven't a clue who he or she is.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Just to add something on the G.F. question: Richard Daft was a contemporary, and in chapter 8 of his memoirs (Kings of Cricket), he discussed the youngest grace. He refers to him as "Mr G.F. Grace" in the chapter heading, and in the first reference in the body of the text. He then refers to him a second time as "Mr Fred Grace" (page 144). Other amateurs are referred to either by their first names of initials, apparently at the author's whim. I infer that both forms of address seemed natural to someone who knew the man (as opposed to one form being "universally" used. Altham uses both forms in the first edition of his history of the game. Another contemporary, A.G. Steel, uses "Mr G.F. Grace" rather than "Fred." More tellingly, yet another contemporary, Ranjitsihnji, is in his Jubilee Book, not only uses initials alone for all three of the brothers, but places quotes around the initials indicating that this is how they were known (page 384). On the same page, discussing his death, he calls him "Fred Grace." I hope this establishes that it was unfair to describe my edit as a "mistake" making it necessary to revert my edits wholesale. If there's a mistake, it's in the claim that he was "universally" known as "Fred." Following the sources, we should use both forms in the article.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I mentioned this on Jack's talk page, but so that other editors are aware, the usage "M.C.C." is to be widely found among WP cricket project FAs including Bodyline, Wilfred Rhodes, Wally Hammond, George Macaulay and the currently nominated Bernard Bosanquet. I am not concerned about which version appears in the current article, but it's at least unclear that adding periods consitututes an "error."KD Tries Again (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes, well, now that you have made your WP:POINT for the umpteenth time, perhaps you can add some meaningful content to the article? After all, the purpose of this site is to provide information for the benefit of the readers and the addition of a few dots and spaces does not achieve that. You have mentioned the books at your disposal so lets see something from those sources that tells us more about the subject.

"I spent a lot of time inserting periods consistently". Did you really? As for your statement that "W.G. was iconic in its day, WG was not", I suggest you read that aloud and remember that people called him "Double-you-Gee". How they wrote it then and how people write it now is not the point at all. The point is that the article did have a consistent usage that was not in breach of any site rules and complied with the, albeit not mandatory, consensus agreed years ago by WP:CRIC. Then you come along with your insistence on "inserting the periods" and what have you achieved? Absolutely nothing. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack, remember WP:OWN. You are not in charge of the article, and I'd ask you not to direct the work of other editors as you have tried to do here and at my talk page. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. I've explained that you were incorrect in what you said about WP cricket project manual of style, G. F. Grace and M.C.C. - your three bases for saying I had introduced errors and inaccuracy into the article. If you have a substantive response on any of that, let's see it so that all editors can discuss it. Otherwise let's move on. I should hardly need to add that the fame of W.G.'s initials (see the Ranji book cited) does not rest on spoken word alone, so I think that point (which you've made twice) can safely be shelved.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again