Talk:Kennington Common

Separate article

This article has been reinstated independently of Kennington Park because the cricket ground is an important historic venue that needs separate treatment. If the current name of the article poses a problem in the context of the Park article, I suggest it is changed to Kennington Common cricket ground. But I'll leave it as is for the time being. Jack (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like history won for once, Jack (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Critique

Blue Square Thing. First, there is this which, never mind WP:PRESERVE, is nothing more than an act of WP:VANDALISM. Also, your "justification" for blindly hacking away at the section is WP:POV. You say: it really isn't a very important place in cricket terms. Indeed? Well, members of the Cricket Society and the ACS, plus several historical writers, do not agree with your "opinion". In terms of cricket history, Kennington Common is very important, not that someone with your evident ignorance of history would appreciate that fact.

As for this is generally a bunch of stuff copied from sources, you are either accusing me of COPYVIO or you are being completely stupid. Yes, I did obtain the information from sources, just as editors who write featured articles get their content from sources. Did I commit COPYVIO? No, I did not. I've checked. I clearly took the facts, and wrote them down in my own words, as I always do, unless I'm directly quoting someone. Since there has been no COPYVIO, that leaves just the alternative, which has manifested itself in thousands of other articles besides this one.

Moving on to more vandalism, you evidently think Kennington Common never had a cricket history that our readers might like to know about. You have said in numerous articles that content has been "made up", and yet, strangely enough, reliable sources can always be cited (as will be the case here). Strictly speaking, there were no "first-class" matches on the Common, but according to the ACS there were some twenty-plus historically important matches, which for all intents and purposes are the same thing. The sole difference between the two is that the earlier matches left no scorecard. So, yet again, we come to your ludicrous insistence that, if it isn't in CricketArchive, it didn't happen. And that is total, absolute BS(T).

You also declared that the content was "waffle", another word you do not know the meaning of. You deleted twelve short paragraphs which all contained historical information, half of them including valid quotes. Your definition of "waffle" is anything over and above statistical synthesis. As I said above, 'if it ain't in CricketArchive, it didn't happen', according to you.

Just to reinforce the point, the Good article criteria (not something that would ever concern you) holds that prose (which is what you call "waffle") must be clear, concise, and understandable; and the article must be broad in its coverage, and holding its focus without going out of scope. I realise all this is way over your head because you have never produced anything worthy of C-class, or even half-decent start-class, but those of us who do write articles try to produce good prose and stay within scope.

Kennington Common has only a brief history, which is mostly the product of even briefer newspaper pieces. To present that history in terms of "broad overage", it is necessary to say something about most, if not all, of the known matches. The matches are undeniably within scope. You are incapable of providing broad coverage, so you go for narrow instead. According to you, cricket articles must be useless stubs which resemble CricketArchive. Anything broader (with prose) is "waffle". You do not know what you are doing, or what you are talking about.

To set the seal on this critique of your abysmal editing, I laughed out loud when I looked at this one. Template:Infobox cricket ground has a parameter titled 'county club', which should perhaps be renamed 'county club/team', or just 'county'. Perhaps, but no matter as the context (something else you have never understood) is clear enough. The point is that Surrey played there, and Surrey was a county team. Therefore, Surrey as the variable was correct. For you to come along and take the parameter title so literally is, frankly, risible.

I shall now rescue this article. Hazarding a guess, there must be 2,000 or more articles I've had to restore/rescue/repair in the last eight months, 99% of them because of your spite and incompetence. I have to say that this is one of the worst, much more than merely typical. And yet you are WP:UNBLOCKABLE. Jack (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, BS thing, including a few breaks it's taken me about eight and a half hours to restore and enhance the article with everything properly cited, which means nothing was ever 'made up' (as per all the other articles where you regurgitated that particular lie). Not bad, is it, taking an article from BS(T)-class to B-class in one relaxing afternoon?

You should note that the article meets the GACR criteria now. It is well-written, no POV, referencing is sound, it is both broad enough and within scope, the images are okay, and it presents a summary-style history of the venue. It does not in any way resemble some messy CricketArchive list such as a certain incompetent would concoct. In fact, it doesn't even cite CA, or Cricinfo.

I'll leave it a while now, and look at it again in due course to decide if it should go to WP:GAN. That's strictly out of bounds to you; your stuff goes to WP:BOG for flushing into the sewers. Jack (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)