Talk:2013 Ashes series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 2013 Ashes series is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject Cricket (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Bclass-checklist.svg
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject England (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Unrefed claim[edit]

The article claims that "this will be the first time since the 1882 Ashes series that an Ashes series in England will not contain Lord's as a host venue", yet no reference is provided and the link is to a series that is not considered an Ashes series. Could this please be clarified? Jenks24 (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

YouTube live streaming[edit]

The first test is being streamed for free on YouTube, I discovered this today !! Is it a legitimate stream, should it be added to the article as one of the broadcast mediums?

I definitely think it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.113.21 (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Test" or "test"[edit]

According to common use at both Cricinfo and CricketArchive, we should be capitalising "Test" in all cases. Saying "a Test match" is just another way of saying "a match of Test cricket", so I don't see why one would be capitalised and the other wouldn't. I'm pretty sure the term is defined as such by the ICC too. – PeeJay 22:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree 100%. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The Concise Oxford Dictionaty (2002) uses lower case for test match. It is the tendency of specialist publications (I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Wisden, which for the record does capitalize) to capitalize the jargon relevant to their own field; this does not form a precedent that should be followed in more general publications (e.g., an encyclopedia). As a general publication aimed at a general readership Wikipedia should follow the conventions of standard grammar and not the conventions of niche publications. Test match is not a proper noun; The Ashes, The World Cup, Wimbledon etc. are, but cricket and rugby test matches, tennis games, sets and matches etc. are not proper nouns. Travelpleb (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I've never read a copy of Wisden, so I didn't have it as a source to draw on, but if they capitalise then we absolutely should. I don't see how you can apply "standard grammar" to a specialist term, so of course we should use what the specialist publications do, regardless of what the OED does (and why they don't capitalise is beyond me). I've never seen "game, set and match" capitalised, even in specialised publications, so I don't know why you're bringing that up. – PeeJay 21:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Specialist publications in all fields are full of idiosyncratic conventions that make them more accessible to their niche readership and less accessible to a wider audience. Let's take as an example deconstructive textual analysis (which for this purpose I hope you are not familiar with): you cannot seriously suggest Wikipedia should deal with its article Deconstruction (a complicated article written in a way approaching accessible) in the same way that a specialist publication would, e.g., this incomprehensible-to-almost-everyone essay on Derrida, the father of deconstructive textual analysis)*. So no, the linguistic conventions of specialist publications do not per se justify their use in an encyclopedia. We should follow the dictionary.
While I don't want to question cricket's merits as a game relative to other non-capitalizing sports, I cannot see what linguistically makes it deserve special grammatical treatment, and, therefore, we should follow the dictionary.
Let me explain how to apply the rules of "standard grammar" to all terms specialist and not: if were are dealing with a proper noun, we should capitalize; with a common noun, we should not. The article Proper noun (or is that proper noun?) may be of guidance.
* I chose deconstructive analysis is one of the few things more complicated than cricket. I hope it isn't too great a digression.Travelpleb (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
We follow an illogical naming convention for series names because it's what Wisden does. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well in that case we'd better not exercise any critical thought or question which authority (Wisden vs. dictionary) is the most appropriate. Thanks for clearing that up!Travelpleb (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking that might be sarcasm, but with no obvious clues it's always hard to tell on the Internet. To expand on my comment, see West Indian cricket team in Australia in 2012–13. Note the dates. But it's about a tour that occurred entirely in 2013. I argued that the name made no sense, but was told we have to do it that way because it's the way Wisden does it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talkcontribs)
Not only is that the way Wisden does it, but the years don't refer to the calendar dates between which the tour occurred, they refer to the cricket season in which it was played. The West Indies' tour of Australia may have happened completely in 2013, but it was part of the 2012–13 Australian cricket season. – PeeJay 10:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This is obviously not the place to debate that matter, but my simple answer (question really) is "So what?" Our goal should be titles that make sense and are as simple as possible. Apart from your reason, which can be paraphrased as "That's the way we've always done it, and the way Wisden does it", it makes no sense. Please don't bother answering. I saw the answers last time. They didn't convince me then and they won't convince me now. Many traditional aspects of cricket are worth retaining. With short tours and even indoor venues now, that tradition is not. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Appeals to tradition are invalid. This has been thorough explored here by far more numerous and more strongly feeling people than we are. Wisden is not our boss/god/idol/law book.Travelpleb (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What do non-Wisden sources use ? My quick (non-scientific) search of news.com.au,theguardian.com and bbc.co.uk all show Test (with a cap). LGA talkedits 11:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just checked my local reliable source, The Age, published but a few km from the MCG. It's capital Ts all round. HiLo48 (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, there you go. Media usage definitely trumps the dictionary. I think we can close this conversation now. – PeeJay 12:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Given that no-one has mentioned Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS), I am assuming that none of us is sufficiently well placed to comment on what type of source trumps another. I have mentioned this discussion in one of the talk pages of the MoS (see this post). Maybe contributors more familiar with Wikipedia's writing conventions will either substantiate or repudiate the above unsourced comment.Travelpleb (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way the MoS is a complicated thing. While browsing it I found something that effectively said "a good source of information is often not a good guide to writing style." If I find it again I'll staple the link to Wisden's forehead.Travelpleb (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and, FWIW, longstanding consensus on Wikipedia is for the use of the capitalised form of "Test". --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Specialist style fallacy is the policy we're after. Its summary is thus:
  • Wikipedia has its own set of guidelines for article layout and naming. Facts on a subject should be drawn from reliable sources, but how content is styled is a matter for the Wikipedia community.
And my point is best summarized by: "It [the fallacy] is used to justify a "local consensus" of specializing editors, often a WikiProject, for specialist-sourced article naming and styling issues that other editors and readers, unfamiliar with the field, find strange, impenetrable, inappropriate and/or grammatically incorrect."
Travelpleb (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying that outsiders should be able to change the way a certain term is presented because they might not get it? I highly doubt that anyone reading this article would say, "Why have they capitalised 'Test'?" when it's clear by the way we've done it throughout that it's a convention within cricket (not just WP:CRIC or the elite cricket media) to do so. It's not like this is an absurdly specialised term that no one has ever heard of before; it's the word 'test', except with a capital letter at the start to indicate that it is a particular format of the game of cricket. – PeeJay 23:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
While we're looking at fallacies, I notice the above post is pushing a few others beyond the specialist style fallacy:
  • So you're saying that outsiders should be able to change the way a certain term is presented because they might not get it?
This is an appeal to ridicule, "an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration."
In answer to the question, yes, I am saying that outsiders will have a better grasp of the appropriate style than will specialist immersed in the peculiarities of their field. You are also creating a diversion about the issues of the specialist style fallacy: allowing readers to "get it" is not the only reason Wikipedia seeks general over specialist style conventions. Going back to the specialist style fallacy:
The Wikipedia community supports specialist publications' stylistic recommendations when they do not conflict with widespread general usage, grammar and other expectations.
The problem at hand is not your interpretation of whether the capitalization can be understood, it is whether it this usage is appropriate for an encyclopedia that has a very broad audience and should be written in a coherent and accessible way, i.e., the "grammar and other expectations".
  • I highly doubt that anyone reading this article would say, "Why have they capitalised 'Test'?" when it's clear by the way we've done it throughout that it's a convention within cricket (not just WP:CRIC or the elite cricket media) to do so.
First, this is using the specialist style fallacy to support the specialist style fallacy (circular reasoning).That "we've done it throughout" and "it's a convention within cricket" do not mean that it is correct: that's the whole point of the specialist style fallacy. (See excepts from the specialist style fallacy page below). This is a general encyclopedia that is not bound to follow the conventions of cricket.
Second, what you "highly doubt" is highly subjective and largely irrelevant to the resolution of this issue, lest we fall for the mind projection fallacy. Given that we're talking about this capitalization and that it is not used in the dictionary is sufficient evidence to suggest that more than zero readers have asked "Why have they capitalised 'Test'?".
  • It's not like this is an absurdly specialised term that no one has ever heard of before; it's the word 'test', except with a capital letter at the start to indicate that it is a particular format of the game of cricket.
This combines an unfortunate appeal to ridicule with an oversight of the other issues.
As I quoted above, our writing style should avoid specialist style if it involves "styling issues that other editors and readers, unfamiliar with the field, find strange, impenetrable, inappropriate and/or grammatically incorrect." While this usage is not impenetrable, you're overlooking the "strange..., inappropriate and/or grammatically incorrect" aspects.
From the specialist style fallacy page:
We side with general, not specialist, practice when there is a conflict, because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia with the most general audience in the entire world, and is not a specialist publication or collection of specialist publications.
A common result [of the fallacy]... is a fait accompli, whereby the majority of articles within the scope of the specialty may be edited by the specialists to conform to the specialist practice...[and] non-specialist editors don't care enough about the matter at any given article to get into a lame, protracted dispute about it, but will just roll their eyes and walk away.
[Wikipedia's MoS] and related guidance draw primarily upon reliable generalist sources for editing guidelines. These sources include style guides..., dictionaries and other encyclopedias, as well as observation of what is most commonly done in reliable general publications like newspapers and non-specialist magazines and websites...
Conclusion
My take on this is that the heart of the issue is the question: should we follow the dictionary or the "reliable general publications"? Everything else about existing practice, Wisden, tradition, and comprehensibility is not relevant.Travelpleb (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Normal newspapers aren't specialist sources and their reporting style is "what is most commonly done", given their prevalence. Are we done now? --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
You're cherry picking: you overlook that a variety of sources should be consulted for good style, and in this case the variety of recommended sources don't agree.Travelpleb (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not cherrypicking. Take your pick from hundreds of non-specialist English language reliable news sources around the world, as well as books and specialist sources. You have no consensus and no support in policy or guideline and I have no desire to follow you into the annals of WP:LAME so I won't be continuing to respond on this. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Test with a capital T is correct. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's insightful. Cheers Lugnuts.
Specialist style fallacy wins. I'm not going to push this further.Travelpleb (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not a specialist style if the general media use this style. Thank you for your contributions, but they're not required in this instance. – PeeJay 21:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

I've released all the photos I took at the cricket this summer here under a usable creative commons licence. Hope they are of some use

Francium12 (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)