Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cricket (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Skip to:

If you want to request for a batting graph for any cricketer, please do so at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Graphs/Requests.


I already raised this issue a few months ago here, probably that has been archived after that. Some people said that they couldn't believe that this silly topic was raised and being discussed here. But some other said that if those were sourced then those could be mentioned in the scorecards below the venue. Now as we have seen that attendance is playing a major part in modern day cricket, so I think attendances should be mentioned in the scorecards below the venue, if available. I added the attendances in the article of 'South African cricket team in Australia in 2014-15' but user Lugnuts removed them and told me to raise the issue here and then to add if people agree with it. In recent times, we have seen Ashes test attracting record crowds, even a Big Bash League game at the Adelaide Oval attracted 52,633 people which broke even the AFL records at the re-developed Adelaide Oval. The crowd attendances in cricket is now one of the most important talking points in media too. So why to remove those if someone adds them? I think it is the time to leave these orthodoxies and we should add the attendances like the other sport articles do in Wikipedia. Itz arka (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've no objection if the figure is known and there is a reliable source for it. Jack | talk page 13:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not too keen, since it's only really relevant to one-day games (inc. Twenty20), but if it's what the community wants, I'll say it absolutely has to be cited to a reliable source. But my first condition is that it has to be supported by consensus. – PeeJay 13:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
And no approximate figures or rounded up numbers. Has to be a precise total. Jack | talk page 13:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. If all we have is "around 15,000 spectators", you can't put that in the box. – PeeJay 13:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course that round up numbers shouldn't be added. In fact in cricket matches in Australia, CA keeps the record of the attendances. The respective stadiums post their respective attendances in twitter after every match. Whatever, we can't put a link of twitter though. So we also have a reliable source of where the records of attendances of all the games played in Australia are kept, be it cricket, AFL, NRL, soccer, tennis or baseball. So I think as there are sources available, so we can add it. Itz arka (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't see what harm it can do as long as it is reliably sources. Harrias talk 16:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
So 3 people are supporting and one is partially supporting. Now can we get to a conclusion that it can be added if sourced? Itz arka (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a discussion that has only been up for seven hours constitutes a consensus. Give it a couple of days at least. And even then, can we at least add a parameter to {{Single-innings cricket match}}? – PeeJay 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I think adding it as an optional parameter in the match templates is the logical way to go. It should be pretty simple. Harrias talk 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
If an extra parameter "Attendance" can be added to the template, then it's okay I guess. Although we currently use the '< br >' to add it below the venue, but fixing it as an extra parameter would be a great idea I guess for limited overs' cricket. Itz arka (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
So can we assume that we can add them? User:Lugnuts can I revert those edits on the article of 'South African cricket team in Australia in 2014-15'??? I hope that from now on no one will remove the figures. Itz arka (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for the idea. It's got nothing to do with the outcome or notability of the match. More than happy for it to appear in body copy. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Still more people have no problem in having these stats as I said that other sport articles also provide them. No harm done. Itz arka (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Dweller. This is trivial to the extreme. No-one cares how many people saw AB's 149 from 44 balls, or how many attended a certain day of a certain Test. Just because football games have this info doesn't mean we have to dumb down to that level. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Your rudeness is just useless here. What do you mean by 'dumb down'?? Adding attendances in cricket or football articles means dumbing down to some lower level? Not only football, even AFL, NFL, Rugby all use to do that, except us because we have some orthodox users who just want to dumb down wikipedia by deleting facts randomly. And yes, people cared about how many persons watched AB's 149. If there were only 100 people in the ground, the TV ratings would be down too. The fact that IPL and BBL have become this much popular domestic leagues is because of the high attendances. And that's what differentiates these two leagues from HRV Cup or Twenty20 Cup. Please get right on your logic. Itz arka (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You've just proved my point by trying to get Test and ODI cricket in the same league as IPL and BBL. "If there were only 100 people in the ground, the TV ratings would be down too" - no WP:OR please. The only real attendance record that matters in cricket is Boxing Day in Melbourne. The rest isn't needed. Ever. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"The only real attendance record that matters in cricket is Boxing Day in Melbourne. The rest isn't needed. Ever." Well this is your view and it seems like that you think that whatever verdict you give is the ultimate one! And treating Test and ODI superior than T20 is only an orthodox idea, but Wikipedia guidelines don't think in that way. Itz arka (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in Wikipedia it is written that cricket pages except 'Boxing Day tests' can not add 'Attendances'. Itz arka (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere is it written that any page should include attendance. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Erm, if attendances at the ground were reflected in TV audiences, there'd be pretty much no televised coverage of county cricket. For that matter, there'd be no televised coverage of Test cricket from most countries. Sadly. But there is. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Dweller well you are not fully correct. If that was the case, then county test matches and the Sheffield Shield would also be televised in India too. But they only televise the BBL and T20 Cup. So certainly the crowd and viewer interests matter. Itz arka (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If the size of the crowd mattered, county cricket wouldn't be televised by anybody. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the attendance is only notable when it's, er, notable: a record crowd, for instance, or if the crowd intervenes in some way. Not as a matter of routine. And I don't think attendance figures are routinely collected or published anyway. At rather a lot of Test matches and other important games in the UK these days, the joys of corporate hospitality mean that there are often more people there for the freebie lunch than for the cricket. Johnlp (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that they dont get published in the UK. But they are traditionally published in Australia. So why can't we add those figures for the matches being played in Australia? Itz arka (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Because they're not important/notable. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Itz, I admire your passion, but the voice of consensus is speaking. And sometimes (often, in my case) you have to shake your head and accept that everyone else has got it wrong, but that's just the way it needs to be. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Still the consensus is not over. four people said they have no problem with attendances while three people said they have a huge lot of problems. Itz arka (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:TLDR, but IMO, any attendance figure that is reliably sourced can and should be added. Bizarre that there is any opposition to adding reliably sourced information. The-Pope (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
TLDR recap: in the scorecard or in the text. I hesitate to say it, but I don't think anyone would object to the latter, if properly sourced. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I honestly see no reason to object this issue. Yes, it may be a tad trivial but other than that I don't see a big problem. JustPlaneEditing (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So more people are not against it and supporting this. And yes we are adding attendances with proper sources. It is sourced, sourced and sourced. Really crazy how some people are going mad over it and want to remove it! Itz arka (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Really crazy how some people are going mad over it and want to include it! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Good that you are repeating my words every time and I am enjoying the way you are giving me unnecessary attentions. Huh, carry on User:Lugnuts. Keep on ;-) Itz arka (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You've not presented any real arguments for this. But do carry on! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
As more people have no problem with the topic, so it will be added and most importantly it will not be deleted by random people. But who deleted JustPlaneEditing's comment? Itz arka (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Who cares? His comment was rude and deserved to be deleted. Besides, I'd like to clarify that I am definitely against the proposal since no one has proven that reliable sources typically record attendances on a regular basis. – PeeJay 20:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oppose. Well, as I said near the top of the discussion, I expect a precise total from a reliable source and I agree with PeeJay that there is no proven reliable source for attendances on a regular basis. Certainly I can't find one though I'd be happy to be informed of one. So, sorry Itz Arka, but without that I'm against the proposal too. Jack | talk page 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Jack, I have said earlier in this discussion that attendances should be kept for games played in Australia. In the website they keep the record of attendances on a regular basis. Not for cricket only, but for all sports. Itz arka (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
First, what makes that site reliable? Where do they get their info? Second, what makes Australia so special that they get to have attendances included when all we have to corroborate them is a questionable source? – PeeJay 21:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That is the official site regarding all information, not only about attendances, but all sports played in Australia. And it doesn't make Australia special, but they traditionally record attendances, that's why we can add those figures for the matches played in Australia. It's like how we use the scorecard template as 'wickets/runs' for Australia only, but not 'runs/wickets' like what we do for matches generally played outside Australia, just because it is their tradition. Itz arka (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything official about that website. Looks like a glorified blog to me. – PeeJay 15:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Just a question, would Cricinfo be a reliable source because some scorecards have attendance info? JustPlaneEditing (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the criteria that makes Cricinfo reliable? Exactly the same question came to my mind! :P Itz arka (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

PeeJay, what makes a website official or reliable? Itz arka (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS. Harrias talk 18:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I think there is written below the home page of that website about the preservation of the copyrights of those facts. Itz arka (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
As long as we don't reach to a consensus, let the attendance figures remain. I still cant see the problem behind, see all the articles including Big Bash League, Ashes etc. Come on, there's no problem in making the article more informative. Why does it even matter to people whether attendance figures are included or not? It just depends whether they are properly sourced or not. Its funny to see people question or argue about sites, for then, debates as such would really make websites such as Wikipedia take a backstage. Atleast 15 friends asked me about the India vs Aus attendance. When I told them to visit Wikipedia, they said that it does not have that info. Really surprising. Karyasuman (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (IST)
When there is no consensus, the default action to take is... nothing. We don't add it. – PeeJay 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't convincing. Something like, that's my side of view so let's do that. Karyasuman (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2015 (IST)
It doesn't have to be convincing, that's how things work on Wikipedia. You've been here long enough to know that by now. – PeeJay 15:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
All I meant was when the majority want the attendance to be included, its silly to keep deleting them. Karyasuman (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2015 (IST)
What majority? I don't see any majority. Plus, that's not how consensus is achieved on Wikipedia, it's about strength of arguments, not just numbers. – PeeJay 15:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I did see the majority in support of the fact that having attendance figures which are properly sourced should be included, both online on Wikipedia as well as offline. When you talk about arguments, the argument in favour does have a lot of strength.--Karyasuman (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Well said Karyasuman, but the problem with Wikiproject Cricket is that it has got all the orthodox old fashioned users while look at the articles of Rugby, Football and other spectator sports, they all have their attendances recorded. But here some people like to remove it, even if it is sourced. Even if we say that attendances are sourced, they are verified from reliable sites, then they have to say only one thing which is that attendances are not notable. And now they are questioning the validity of some official websites. And all their lame reasons are considered here as stronger opinions. In fact, till now I have followed many projects like Football, Rugby, Bollywood, Chemistry in Wikipedia, but nothing disgusted me as it did here about the mindset of the users of Wikiproject Cricket. Now how can I let them realize that those websites are official or not? Should I try hack them to get their license out from somewhere? LOL. More people have no problem here, and the fact they are saying about the stronger arguments is relative to each one. They say that their arguments are stronger while we think ours are. So better let the Wikiproject Cricket lay inside their nutshell, you can not change these little things. Go work in Soccer, Rugby projects, the users are more open there about innovative new ideas. And the attendance figures don't get vanished if they are not mentioned in Wikipedia. The ICC and the attendees really don't care about whether Wikiproject Cricket is adding them or not. The game will be as popular as it should be and Wiki will be in it's place. So I think if they really want to give lame excuses like questioning the validity of a licensed website just to stop adding the attendance figures for whatever reason, then let them do that. I have no problem. Itz arka (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It really is time to bring this thing to an end, like the attempted co-existent vote thread below that Harrias has rightly shut down. So far, I'm the only one who has actually posted an "oppose" vote and I remain opposed because I am not convinced that reliable attendance figures are available or that they would add any value even if they were. I must be "old-fashioned", I suppose. I bought a pair of cords the other day: is that evidence or are cords back "in"? Jack | talk page 22:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You think that attendances don't add values to the match, that may be your opinion. But that is not enough convincing to turn down a possible consensus. Let me give you some examples. The Big Bash match at the Adelaide Oval drew media attention for getting the highest ever attendance for any sport at the re-developed Adelaide Oval. The media is talking a lot about the possible ticket sales till now for the World Cup of over 825,000 tickets. They are also discussing every time about the possible attendances in the first fours matches this weekend. Look at these links from VERIFIED and RELIABLE websites [1], [2], [3]. And you are asking to bring an end to this discussion, but still no consensus have been reached. The media always discussing about it. Look at this for God sake [4], [5]. The leading media in Australia are discussing about the whopping attendances and TV ratings which have taken the BBL to newer heights. And I think now I don't have to give reliable website links to prove it even about the Ashes in Australia as well as in England. This much media attention and the official websites publishing and twitting the attendances after every match DOES MAKE ATTENDANCES NOTABLE AS PER WP:GNG. So when it is notable as per Wiki guidelines and also more people want it to be there, there is no meaning to end this discussion. And I think it should be there. Itz arka (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this must be an Australian vs English thing. Attendances at Australian sporting events are constantly discussed. At some grounds, with bar code tickets, the live number actually appears in the corner of the scoreboard, increasing as the game gets closer to starting (see this image from a footy game, 35,693 on the screen, and that matches the number in the match report). And BlackJack, you have created articles on players over hundred and 150 years old, with no birthdate or sometimes not even first name initial. Should we not bother about birthdates or first name for all other players because all aren't reliably sourced? Of course not. So, in this instance, in Australia, with lots of focus on them, it is a no brainer to include reliably sourced information about the game, and whether the attendances are high, setting records, beating forecasts, or low, it will be an issue. Just search for Asian Cup attendances to see how fixated the Aussie sports media is with attendances. I challenge you all, to try to find one full match report from a major Australian newspaper ( or that doesn't mention the crowd. They even mentioned the crowd at the warmup matches! The-Pope (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Putting things in capitals and in bold is the equivalent of shouting: please don't do it. I am against putting attendances in as a matter of routine because they are not usually relevant to the notability of a match; where they are notable (by reason of numbers, or perhaps influence on the course of a match) then it'd be reasonable to have some mention in the text. But as a matter of routine, no. The fact that newspapers and media sometimes use these figures (and usually with cricket they don't outside Australia) is not a good argument: we're building an encyclopedia here, not trying to imitate news media. So where it's relevant and noteworthy and contributes to the notability of a match, then fine; but otherwise I'm not at all convinced. And please don't shout. Johnlp (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Another lame excuse. When the whole Wikipedia articles and facts are only supported by reliable links from media and websites, then you can not ignore it by saying "we're building an encyclopedia here, not trying to imitate news media". This is a hypocrisy for an online encyclopedia which is supported by links from media. And note that I am not the first person to use BOLD words, rather user BlackJack used the bold ones first to oppose the issue. So you should rather ask him first to stop it. Ohh wait, how can you ask him to stop? you two are having the same negative opinion on this matter! And as I said, it is notable per WP:GNG. Itz arka (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
And about 100 or 150 years old cricketers with no initial confirmed name, nobody really cares about them. Neither us, nor media, nor the fans nor do the Wikipedia viewers. And it can be palpable by seeing the page view statistics of those poor articles which are notable only through Cricket guidelines, not by GNG. Itz arka (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I support adding attendances for the World Cup. In Australian sport, including Australian cricket, the attendance at the game is a noteworthy event, for all the reasons that The Pope has mentioned. If we don't add attendances, then surely there's lots of other things that don't need adding? For example, is it important and noteworthy to know the umpire/third umpire/match official name? For non-Australian cricket, I believe that attendances are less cared about, but you won't necessarily find a reliable attendance figure. So, for this tournament (and Australian cricket series), I believe that attendances are noteworthy, and so should be added. It could always be an "only in Australia" thing, like writing 1/141 only in Australian cricket articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, I don't care whether there are attendances mentioned in cricket matches outside Australia. But it's traditional and makes a lot of sense for matches played in Australia. And really, I don't care about who the umpires or third umpires are. Removing attendance figures and adding umpires' names some of whom don't even have Wiki articles, is a joke. Itz arka (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The joke is belittling the importance of the umpires by saying we don't need to identify them. Without the match officials, the game couldn't go ahead, whereas it could still happen without people to watch it. That's not to say attendance figures are totally unimportant, but I have yet to see any sources that traditionally record attendances as part of the basic match info. Even on the ABC Sport site, they didn't record attendance figures for the Australia/England/India tri-series that just finished. As far as I can tell, attendances may be recorded, but almost always in a prose match report rather than as a single stat in the overall match stats. – PeeJay 13:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I have already told you that keeps attendance records on a regular basis. While you questioning about the reliability of the website, I have also told you about that. The website obeys the copyright laws of the sources. So your question hereby becomes invalid. Itz arka (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
They may record the attendances, but who says they're reliable? Where's the corroboration? My question doesn't become invalid just because you say so. There's no indication where gets their info from, which makes them pretty unreliable. Furthermore, a site that exclusively records attendances doesn't give any indication that attendances should be recorded as a matter of course along with cricket stats. – PeeJay 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
10 August
New Zealand 
288 (48.5 overs)
88 (29.3 overs)
Ross Taylor 95 (113)
Ashish Nehra 4/47 (9.5 overs)
Ravindra Jadeja 20 (44)
Daryl Tuffey 3/34 (8 overs)
New Zealand won by 200 runs
Rangiri Dambulla International Stadium, Dambulla
Umpires: Simon Taufel (Aus) & Ranmore Martinesz (Sri)
Player of the match: Ross Taylor (NZ)
  • New Zealand won the toss and elected to bat

10 August
Attendance: 26,436[1]
New Zealand 
288 (48.5 overs)
88 (29.3 overs)
Ross Taylor 95 (113)
Ashish Nehra 4/47 (9.5 overs)
Ravindra Jadeja 20 (44)
Daryl Tuffey 3/34 (8 overs)
New Zealand won by 200 runs
Rangiri Dambulla International Stadium, Dambulla
Umpires: Simon Taufel (Aus) & Ranmore Martinesz (Sri)
Player of the match: Ross Taylor (NZ)
  • New Zealand won the toss and elected to bat

Just to offer some perspective; I remain reasonably ambivalent: I really don't mind either way. But those who don't want it: If it is well-referenced to a reliable source, is it really so bad to go from the first example to the second above? (There are various places it could go, but there avoids lengthening the template.) Is it worth this much argument? There is no need to remove anything, or to make the template any bigger. It could be argued that it adds a little clutter, but it's hardly clutter-free at the moment. Why not try a trial: allow it for Twenty20 matches, and for the Cricket World Cup. After that, if it has caused issues with various sources disagreeing, or with unreferenced false looking numbers being added, we can re-address it? I'm just trying to offer a possible middle ground, to prevent this argument going on forever! Harrias talk 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to dissociate the attendance figure from the venue like that. It's better to put them together, as in Itz arka's example below. – PeeJay 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I would rather prefer to have it in the following way...
10 August
New Zealand 
288 (48.5 overs)
88 (29.3 overs)
Ross Taylor 95 (113)
Ashish Nehra 4/47 (9.5 overs)
Ravindra Jadeja 20 (44)
Daryl Tuffey 3/34 (8 overs)
New Zealand won by 200 runs
Rangiri Dambulla International Stadium, Dambulla
Attendance: 26,436[1]
Umpires: Simon Taufel (Aus) & Ranmore Martinesz (Sri)
Player of the match: Ross Taylor (NZ)
  • New Zealand won the toss and elected to bat

And allow it for T20s, World Cups and all internationals played in Australia (including Big Bash). Itz arka (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So what's the final decision? Itz arka (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Not to add it until there is a consensus to do so. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Lugnuts, don't add them until there's a consensus. Although I personally think they should be there, I believe that continually adding and removing them will cause an unnecessary edit war (there's already been 2-3 reversions today). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
For the record, a simple !vote (as below) is not at all binding. I will add my !vote below, but the poll still means nothing, regardless of the result, especially if you're going to deny people the opportunity to clarify their !votes. – PeeJay 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
For all the reasons stated above, and to echo PeeJay, above, !votes don't offer any weight to gaining a consensus. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
But at the end of the day the clarifications won't matter if a voting is done. Right? And what will be the proper solution other than voting when a consensus is hung for weeks with no proper solutions being reached? @Lugnuts... Itz arka (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Some of the comments above are so biased, looks like some people would do anything to defend their will. If possible, Would you change the democratic system followed in different countries given the result is not according to your choice? I hope no one would try to hang the issue to "nowhere". Ultimately, that will favor a particular group in the debate --Karyasuman (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Attention! How did User:DanielWarne find this and support the view with no prior edits? He created his page just today on 17th February and hence he is not auto confirmed user yet. Does he hold the rights to vote? Please some admins, investigate... Arka 92 07:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I couldn't vote here. I saw this page's reference in the talk section of 2015 Cricket World Cup. I had requested for editing in the same page and that's where I got the reference of this page. [6] Sorry, if I have done a big mistake by the way! DanielWarne (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Till now, all of the CWC '15 matches except the South Africa vs Zimbabwe match have been houseful till now. The two matches at the MCG till now have drawn more than 85,000 which are records in recent times ODIs in Australia. The NZ-Eng match at the Cake Tin, Wellington drew about 31,000 people and for the first time in the history of Cake Tin, a cricket match has been fully sold out. And how weird it is that we can not add these info in our CWC '15 article, because we have some orthodox opposition to that here. Surprised that we call it an encyclopedia. Arka 92 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's a record attendance, or the first time for a sell-out, then I have no problem with that being notable and recorded in the article. What I don't see as necessary is to record the attendance at every match as a matter of routine. Johnlp (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Johnlp, So you mean before reaching the consensus, we can add the record and sell out crowds, right? But I am afraid that Lugnuts will delete those too if I add them even if those are record or sell out crowds! The following are few of the record and sold out crowds this WC:

  • NZ v Eng 30,148 at Westpac Stadium
  • Aus v Eng 84,336 at MCG
  • Ind v SA 86,876 at MCG
  • Ind v Pak 41,587 at Adelaide Oval
  • NZ v Sco 4,684 at Dunedin

and many more. Wish that the Gabba game wasn't a wash out otherwise that would be a record one too... Arka 92 11:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The attendances for these matches at MCG and Adelaide Oval aren't records, so why are they notable? (Adelaide Oval had significantly more people at a different match less than a month ago!) Lots of sporting events sell out; the first time at a particular venue might be notable, but subsequently and routinely? Unless there's an inherent notability about the attendance in terms of being a record or the first time for a sell-out or impacting on the play in the match or some such, it's trivial in the context of the game and therefore not encyclopedic. Johnlp (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Although it might be considered as an WP:OSE argument, but still... Why are those figures added in AFL, Rugby, NFL, Baseball and Football articles routinely then?? Arka 92 13:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You're right: WP:OSE and WP:ININ too. We can't (and shouldn't try to) answer for what other people and projects do. More broadly, there are other factors such as weather, light, pitch preparation, pitch properties (some grounds often seem to take spin, others never) that are all more germane to the outcome of an individual match than the attendance: we don't include these (and nor should we as a matter of routine). We don't include where an individual has achieved a personal best in a particular match (unless it's the best individual performance), or some player's debut or last appearance. You could go on and on adding these things, but that's what CricketArchive and CricInfo are for, not WP. I repeat: if the attendance is notable, then fine; but if it's not, then don't fill up articles with trivia. Johnlp (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Unless the umpires make some notable decisions, should we not bother to name them either? You call it trivia, I call it infomation. The-Pope (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. If we didn't have the umpires already included, and someone came here suggesting we put them in as a matter of routine, I'd probably be inclined to oppose. But that isn't the question we've been asked. Johnlp (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Think about it this way: what gets recorded on a matchday scorecard? The date, the venue, the umpires – those are all intrinsic facts to a game of cricket at any organised level. Not recording the umpires here would be lunacy. Recording attendances, however, is not a matter of course for most levels of cricket. As others have said, if the attendance is particularly notable, it should be mentioned in prose as part of the match report, but it doesn't need to be recorded every time just because we have a source for it. – PeeJay 18:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of people who come to Wikipedia to have an idea about the attendance of these world stage tournaments. I have a few of such friends. When there are the information available for this, then why not to add that? It's only about information. Although the two MCG crowds this time were not the highest ever for ODIs at that venue, but still it is making noise in the media a lot. I always support adding valuable information in an online encyclopedia. They may be trivial but of course valuable and notable. And not as routine for every tournament, but some world stage tournaments like World Cup should have it recorded. Arka 92 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS applies to this last comment. I'll not go on; nothing you've argued has budged me from my original view, which is that attendance figures are fine to use where the attendance is in some way notable or relevant to the course of the match in question. But not as a matter of routine, no matter what the tournament. Johnlp (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I have produced enough logic throughout this thread to prove my point. But the only opposing logic I got was either 'it is trivial' or 'it is not notable' but never those were elaborated. So if you still can't get it, then I'm sorry. Meh, let this discussion get archived. No solution will ever be reached. Arka 92 07:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The points put forward by those opposing, I don't even get them. I mean you actually have a problem in adding "attendance" to these matches? They have become a regular feature to discuss popularity of a sport, even a dumb would say that (Please don't give me points which will say they are vague - I'm just saying in general). And if these stats are available, what's the problem in adding them? Well leave, can't stand this anymore. --Karyasuman (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, seems like some of the experienced users can't even withstand the fact that the consensus could go their opposite way and looks like that they want to care about their ego first. Arka 92 13:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And those points which someone said about not being able to add info about pitch conditions, weather conditions, those are all qualitative things. You can not put them in a scorecard template where digits are required to represent anything. While attendance is a quantitative thing. And even if you say that, then I don't have a problem to add some more attributes to the template like weather, temperature because Cricinfo presents those info in the scorecards. Arka 92 13:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To achieve consensus: vote here[edit]

Everyone with a firm opinion on this proposal should vote "Support" or "Oppose" below and then we will see in a week which way the consensus is. Don't write anything except "Support" or "Oppose", and your signature, as I'm doing immediately below this. Thanks. Jack | talk page 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Jack | talk page 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Support. Moondyne (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:Support. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Meh Don't really care tbh. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. --Karyasuman (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Support. Itz arka (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Support. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Support'. The-Pope (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Marginally oppose. Not needed as a matter of routine, but where the attendance is material to notability, then it's fine. Johnlp (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Strong Meh. Sometimes we navel-gaze too much. And I'm a massive offender, usually. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

1999 and 2003 World Cup Hosts[edit]

This issue has come up on a few pages, including most recently Cricket World Cup. Are the hosts for the 1999 World Cup: (a). England only (b). England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands, (c). England, Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands Are the hosts for the 2003 World Cup: (a) South Africa only (b). South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya.

I believe that they were all listed as hosts, so believe option (b). is correct for both. However, many people have been editing pages with other opinions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitely (b). It's reasonably common to hear "the 1999 World Cup in England" or "the 2003 tournament in South Africa", given they were the primary hosts, but I think Wikipedia should strive to be as accurate as possible. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Put it this way: the World Cup isn't awarded to a country, it's awarded to a hosting Cricket Board, which in turn awards matches to various grounds, most of which are in the country controlled by that Board. In 1999, the World Cup was awarded to the England and Wales Cricket Board, which chose to award four of the 42 matches to grounds in Scotland, Ireland and the Netherlands. So when we talk about "the host nation", are we talking about the Cricket Board that was awarded the World Cup, or are we talking about a simple list of nations where matches were played? – PeeJay 14:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I hope that common people won't judge by the hosting board just because they are full members. So the option should be (b). Arka 92 11:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe (b) is the correct option, too. And, for that matter, I believe that it is correct to list Wales as a host country for the 1983 and 2019 tournaments.
IgnorantArmies, PeeJay and Arka raise some excellent points about (respectively) accuracy, how a particular World Cup and its matches are awarded, and the respective ICC member statuses of the hosting boards and other countries that may host matches. Bluebird207 (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe (c) is correct for 1999, because Wales does not have a separate Cricket Board. If we would consider Wales as as host because games were played there, then we would have to consider Barbados, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana, Antigua & Barbuda, Grenada and St. Kitts & Nevis as hosts of the 2007 tournament. BLOGuil (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

International cricket in xx page moves[edit]

For info, Kwamikagami took it upon themselves to move all the International cricket in yyyy–yyyy to International cricket in yyyy/yyyy, for example International cricket in 2003–04 to International cricket in 2003/2004, using the bizarre rationale "one year, not two". I think I've moved them all back, but something to possibly keep an eye on. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

2003–2004 means it lasted two years. A single season that occurred across those two years would be 2003/2004. That's standard English punctuation. You said on my talk page that "there's a reason" why the articles are at yyyy–yyyy, and that I should check this page for that reason. Could you provide that reason here? — kwami (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Manual of style states "Periods straddling two different years, including sports seasons, are generally written with the range notation (2005–06). The slash notation (2005/06) may be used to signify a fiscal year or other special period, if that convention is used in reliable sources." I don't see any specific reason that we should stray from the standard notation, and we certainly shouldn't do it without gaining a strong consensus here (which isn't easy, as you can see above) or more likely, a WP:RfC. Harrias talk 18:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Harrias. Another example would be 2014–15 FA Cup, and not 2014/15 FA Cup. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I wasn't aware the MOS had changed. — kwami (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Manoj Prabhakar[edit]

I was always fascinated by this chap. In the modern era, it's perishingly rare for a Test cricketer to routinely open the batting and bowling. I wanted to reflect that rarity in the article but don't want to go all WP:PEACOCK or even WP:ORish. Anyone got a decent reference that could help? --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller, I've got a ten-year old copy of Test Cricket Lists which lists all first-innings instances in Tests up to 2005. It's not as rare as you would think – Prabhakar did it on 20 occasions (out of 39 Tests), more than anyone else, but was the only player to do so in the 1990s. Wavell Hinds did it against Zimbabwe in 2003–04, and it doesn't seem likely that anyone's done it since then. M. L. Jaisimha (12), Mudassar Nazar (9), and Syed Abid Ali (6) have done it more than five times. Every team except Bangladesh, New Zealand and Zimbabwe have had a player do it, though no Englishmen or South Africans have done it since the 1950s, and no Australians since the 1920s. Funnily enough, the list includes Victor Trumper (once), Jack Hobbs (three times, all against South Africa), Bill Edrich (once), and Sunil Gavaskar (four times, including once at the MCG). I might add something to Prabhakar's article later today, if you want any further details, let me know. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Superb stuff. Please do add it. So, it's pretty rare since the 1950s. My uninformed guess is that a lot of old time incidents would be when the pitch was a sticky dog. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Just found a pair of lists on Cricinfo (Test and ODI), probably should've looked there first :/ Cricinfo's Test list includes third and fourth-innings instances, which are a bit less relevant, but I've dug through them, and turns out Wavell Hinds was not the last – in fact, there have been six further instances. Irfan Pathan vs Australia in 2008, Dilshan vs New Zealand in 2009, and Mohammad Hafeez four times (against Bangladesh and the Windies in 2011, and twice in the latest series against Australia in the UAE – not sure how we all missed that one). Outside of the genuine allrounders, I'd guess it's generally a result of tired/injured opening bowlers, with a few cases (Gavaskar, I'd assume) of sides fielding three (or more) spinners and needing someone to take the shine off the ball. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 Cricket World Cup group stage match reports/merge proposal[edit]

Please see this discussion on the CWC talkpage regading merging the 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A and 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool B articles into the main article. Either a few more match reports can be added to the group stage articles, or they'll be merged back into the main page. Any help in creating a match report, even if it's only a paragraph or two per game, would be most welcomed. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Do England deserve even a paragraph? :-( Jack | talk page 20:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jack, I'd be quite happy for all content regarding the game against New Zealand to be deleted and never mentioned again. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Master Blaster - quick question[edit]

Please take 10 seconds to add your views at Talk:Viv_Richards#Article_structure. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Australia-New Zealand rivalry[edit]

Do the 5 T20 matches played between Australia and New Zealand count under Aus-NZ cricket rivalry? If so, why aren't those mentioned in any of those rivalry articles? Arka 92 10:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There's only been 400-ish T20I matches ever, so there will be small numbers for any two teams. No doubt, the rivalry will grow. I see no reason to exclude it, so be bold and add it! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks but where to add it? the article Chappell-Hadlee Trophy is about their ODIs only while their test rivalry is the Trans-Tasman Trophy. So should I create a whole new article about their rivalry? Arka 92 10:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a precedent for that in India–Pakistan cricket rivalry, which was created just a couple of weeks ago. JH (talk page) 16:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)