Talk:2015–2017 ICC Intercontinental Cup

Cricket Stub‑class Low‑importance

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.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Cricket To-do list:

Article assessment

Check Category:Unassessed cricket articles for class and Category:Unknown-importance cricket articles for importance: see Assessment Department for details

Verifiability

Update fair and unfair play, fast bowling, first-class cricket, googly, innings, leg break, limited overs cricket, not out, Pakistan Cricket Board, spin bowling, underarm bowling, wicket, and other fundamental articles classified by the WikiProject as high-importance so that they meet WP:Verifiability policy standards

Cleanup

There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)

Infoboxes

Add infoboxes to the player articles found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes

Cricket people

Create articles about 19th century players who are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/19th century players
Create biographies about Bangladeshi players from the task force redlink list
Check the listing of key bios at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Key biographies and improve these to at least B-class.
Create batting/bowling graphs for cricketers who have excelled in international cricket.
Create articles for redlinks present here and here

Cricket teams & countries

Domestic cricket coverage is needed for Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe;
Create articles from redlinks and improve existing articles in List of current first-class cricket teams; National cricket teams; Under-19 national cricket teams
Create articles about cricket in these missing countries
Create or expand articles on international tours from items in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles
Create a link as such on Template:Cr-Aus/doc for Cricket Australia XI

Images

Add pictures (and remove template from address requests) in these Category:Wikipedia requested images of cricket people
Add pictures for grounds missing photos from here

On this day in cricket

Expand the anniversary coverage for Portal:Cricket at Portal:Cricket/Anniversaries

Umpires

Expand ICC International umpire panel; ICC Elite referee panel; ICC Associates and Affiliates umpire panel

Women

Expand Women's cricket, Women's Test cricket and articles about women's cricket generally especially biographies and tours

Update

A number of lists need to be updated, can be found in Template:International cricketers and Template:National cricket captains
Regularly updating cricketers' career stats.

Other

Export all cricket terms present in List of cricket terms to Wiktionary

Tables for rounds 3-7

It seems obvious to me that we don't need tables for rounds 3-7. These provide absolutely no information to the reader and so there is no need for them. The only information in them is a very approximate date but this is already in a previous table. My deletion of them got reverted and I got asked to discuss it at talk so here we are. No justification got given for the reversion as the edit summary only said take it to talk so I'm unable to give the other side of the argument. Dpmuk (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get into this, are you "retired", trolling or both? See this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about assuming good faith? Also that question has nothing to do with the article and would have been better off being asked elsewhere. But as you asked it here I will give a short answer. I am definitely not trolling. Do I consider myself retired, yes I do, and I still consider that the most appropriate template - I'm no longer an admin and I'm no longer involved in the major area I was involved in before, specifically copyright. So I think it's a fair warning to people that come to my user pages as they're mostly likely be coming about my admin work or copyright work. I expand on "retired" with my statement on my user page and even on the talk page I make it obvious I still edit occasionally as I make it clear I will probably reply. That's all I'm going to say on the subject here as it has no bearing on the article whatsoever. If you wish to discuss this further it will have to be in another venue. Dpmuk (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've removed the template, per the template instructions and the previous ANI thread. You may consider finding a better alternative. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to discuss the actual issue here or not. Dpmuk (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: Can I assume by your complete lack of response to this issue that you're now happy for this change to be made? Dpmuk (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Now you continue your "retired" trolling. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a third opinion as it appears I am not going to get any reasoning out of you for wanting the tables in and so it is going to be impossible to reach a consensus between us. Just because you don't agree with me showing "retired" on my talk page that does not mean you should just ignore me. Wikipedia works on consensus. Dpmuk (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is how we've always done it, and you just come in and blank sections, which isn't helpful to editors. That's pretty much vandalism in my book. I ignore trolls, so go figure. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about assumming good faith? I checked the history of the page before removing the tables. There were no tables for the first 6 months of the pages existence and there had seemingly been no discussion etc of their inclusion. Per WP:BRD I boldly removed them. I would not have done this if I thought there was a consensus to keep them. I also considered your point there it was easier for editors to keep them as that seemed to be why they were there. However we should be doing what's best for the reader and I don't think a large amount of, in my opinion, pointless tables is best for the reader. I'm not against some inconvenience for readers to make life easier for editors but in this instance to me the balance is clearly in favour of the readers

I also thought at the time that I wouldn't be against the tables if they actually had the matchups in - i.e. what team would be playing who. That would probably push the balance into keeping them for me. I assumed there was a good reason why the times weren't there (I may have erred there) so didn't think adding them myself was appropiate.

Because of your "always been done this way" I looked back at the previous competition. I see that they did have the tables there before the games were played but they also appeared to have the matchups in. This to me is an important distinction so I'm not wanting to use that as a precedent. I'm particularly against showing wikicode to the reader. Get rid of that, ideally by adding the teams, but if not some other way, and we have ourselves a compromise. Dpmuk (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm also more than happy to continue to discuss the retired issue but this is not the appropriate place to do so - my talk page may be a good place. Dpmuk (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about you WP:AGF! I see none on your part. The current setup benefits the reader and the editor. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you actually posted your reasoning as that may have avoided a lot of this problem. Both in the original revert and in your above comment you have not explained your reasoning. I am more than willing to accept that I may be wrong here and that it benefits the reader but if you're not going to convince me of that without giving your argument. Dpmuk (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To appease your pusillanimous trolling, I've added the matches in full. There's a big edit button at the top of the page, incase you missed it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's much better. I had not yet done so myself as I'd still prefer them not to be there - having filled in tables is a compromise I can accept, which I proposed and which I was waiting to see if it was acceptable to other users. Dpmuk (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. I see lengthy discussion, but I don't see a civil and concise question. What is the question? Comment on content, not on contributors. (Also, read the civility policy.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: See my very first post at the top of the page, i.e. should the blank tables for rounds 3-7 be there? Dpmuk (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value added in the blank tables. What is their purpose? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any interest in the subject (came here from WP:3O), but I agree that the blank tables uselessly lengthen the page and look unprofessional. When the matches are actually held, they can easily be recreated, such as by copying tables for previous matches. Jason McHuff (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]