Talk:2005 English cricket season

Purge the cache

Templates?
Why are the contents of this page in oddly placed, non-mainspace templates rather than the article itself? --Oldak Quill 23:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It should be clearer now I'm developing the article more. I'm doing a set of what will probably be around three dozen encyclopaedic articles on the 2005 English cricket season. Many bits of text will be relevant to more than one article - for instance the text on the Surrey v Sussex games that finishes today will be relevant to this article, and also the articles Surrey County Cricket Club in 2005, Sussex County Cricket Club in 2005 and Frizzell County Championship Division One in 2005. Without using these templates such a series of articles would not be logistically possible (in particular when others start to edit them).


 * Using this Wikimedia technology allows us to have a set of articles that, as far as I am aware, will be unique to Wikipedia, jguk 15:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Checking for completeness
Just a note to say that I have checked to ensure that every page has every match it should have on it up to the end of May, jguk 09:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've now checked and added all the matches at least up to the end of July, jguk 9 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

Lacking categories
Special:Uncategorizedpapges has just been flooded with uncategorized cricket subpages. Could someone who is working in this area add the missing categories? It would be great if these could be dealt with quickly. We only get 1000 pages a week to categorize and these 150+ pages prevent other articles from being started. Below is a start of the 2005 English cricket season pages that are lacking categories. - SimonP 16:29, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah. I only just had Linuxbreak mentioning his hatred of uncategorised pages this morning. I have created a new category for all the match articles: Category:2005 English cricket season matches. This should be added to all those pages with each entry ending in "|Home team v Away team MM-DD" so that its started sensibly. If you help out with removing them, please start at the bottom up and remove the ones you do. In the meantime, I'll start at the top and remove them 10 at a time. Kind regards, jguk 17:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see some are already being done. Scrub what I wrote above, I'll check them chronologically, jguk 17:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done up to match 28 atm. Sam Vimes 17:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll help do some of them, but you might also want to consider renaming the pages at the same time. Couldn't they just be "Bedfordshire v Sussex 4 May 2005" rather than "2005 English cricket season/Bedfordshire v Sussex 4 May 2005". The former title is pretty unambiguous and much shorter to type for anyone linking to it. The long titles also leave something to be desired aesthetically. - SimonP 18:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you. However, I'm quite sure that if we did rename "2005 English cricket season/Bedfordshire v Sussex 4 May 2005" to "Bedfordshire v Sussex 4 May 2005" it would be straight up at WP:VfD before you could say Jack Robinson. If there's all those disputes over schools, I'm sure individual cricket matches (and abandoned cricket matches) won't fare well. I push WP standard practice to the limits to improve WP articles as it is:) Kind regards, and thank you for your help and suggestions, jguk 18:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, it seems like they're already all categorized. Thank you very much for dealing so rapidly with this. - SimonP 18:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Could we remove the start now, or is that not very good WP policy? Only it clutters up the page and is not needed. Sam Vimes 11:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. I don't think anyone would find the start particularly useful now that they are all categorized, and you are right about it cluttering up the page. - SimonP 14:38, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll get onto it shortly. Cheers for providing the links. Sam Vimes 17:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subpages
This page has a huge number of subpages, apparently for individual matches in this season. Subpages have long been deprecated in the article namespace, however, and aren't considered part of the encyclopedia itself; see the guidelines at Subpages. They should at some point be moved to names that aren't subpages. Bryan 07:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it then becomes very hard to integrate them into the main articles, because each match report is displayed on different pages (the page for the league in which the match is played, the subpage for the month and the team page for the year) - we could possibly copy and paste all the reports into the relevant page, but the "transclusion" (I believe that's what it's called) makes it easier for us as editors. Sam Vimes 09:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize they were being transcluded into other articles. This opens up a whole other kettle of fish now, IMO; a few months back I cleaned up a similar situation in a couple of astrology articles in which they were "sharing" sections via transclusion and there was unanimous agreement with the local editors there that this wasn't a good way to go about things. I don't know if there's any policy, but it's always struck me that templates make things harder for editors; they come across a page with a chunk of text they want to edit, they click "edit this page", and then they find that the text they were looking for isn't there. How about turning the transclusions into simple links to the articles instead? That would have the added benefit of greatly reducing the size and redundancy in the articles that are "sharing" these pages. Bryan 15:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I grasped the system of transclusion used here as a relative newb (having only about 30-40 edits before) - it's not THAT hard to understand. The article itself would then be "start of Match Reports", I suppose, instead of the reports itself, plus a more in-depth summary of the season for the team in question (or the league in question). I like it better as it is now, even though it might fly in the face of WP policy... Sam Vimes 16:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I can leave the transclusion issue for someone else to deal with in the future- I know there are some crusaders out there who like to work on those on account of the extra system resources that transclusion uses up. The subpages should still be renamed, though; I believe non-subpage articles can be transcluded just fine (I just tested with "show preview" and this code worked: ) and the subpage policy is quite clear in this regard. I can do all the grunt work of moving pages and fixing links, I just don't know what to call these pages instead and figured I'd ask for ideas rather than making up something on my own. Bryan 23:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As long as they don't get deleted by someone who don't believe individual cricket matches should have their own WP articles...re jguk's comment (further up the page): "I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you. However, I'm quite sure that if we did rename "2005 English cricket season/Bedfordshire v Sussex 4 May 2005" to "Bedfordshire v Sussex 4 May 2005" it would be straight up at WP:VfD before you could say Jack Robinson. If there's all those disputes over schools, I'm sure individual cricket matches (and abandoned cricket matches) won't fare well." If we were to rename them, however, I'd hope we could have something simple like "Home team v Away team Date (cricket match)" - that should be clear enough. Sam Vimes 10:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if an article's deleteworthy, then it's deleteworth regardless of whether there's a slash in the title or not - they'll show up on VfD eventually anyway. Are the names already arranged in home team v away team order in the current titles? If so, I can make a project of moving them without any trouble, all I'd need to do is chop the "2005 English cricket season" off the front. And I doubt it'll be necessary to disambiguate them with "(cricket match)", since I doubt two teams from some other sport from those same locations happened to have a match on the exact same day. Bryan 04:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, all of the matches are started in the form "Home team v Away team DD MONTH YYYY". My concern about VfD is that some will vote on the part rather than the whole (ie that we have an article on one, possibly abandoned, match) rather than it being necessary to have each part to give a comprehensive view of a cricket season as a whole. Some on VfD prefer form over substance, and if we're not careful we'll get the whole season deleted (or part of it) because some people do not recognise what we're doing here. The technique used of making it a subpage attracts less attention.


 * As you've probably worked out, the cricket pages use the WP to the full - and whilst I do not ignore WP guidelines in putting them together, I do not see them as laws written in stone, and where it is genuinely helpful to do something new, something new is done. Many WP's, I know, are conservative, and do not like that approach, but it has certainly yielded great dividends in helping the cricket pages of WP expand greatly.


 * Going back to the point in question, personally I would prefer it if we didn't have the "2005 English cricket season/" prefix. However, I'm genuinely concerned that we will see the project irreparably damaged on VfD if it is omitted. If you can guarantee that they won't be deleted, I'll move them all again myself, jguk 07:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't guarantee anything, of course, I'm just an editor like anyone else. Personally, I think I'd vote against deleting these individual game articles if they showed up on VfD - we've got plenty of articles on individual TV episodes, a cricket match seems like a similar sort of thing. But the idea of making these things subpages specifically to avoid attention seems like a bad approach - if a Wikipedia article has to "hide" to survive then I suspect there's either something wrong with the article or something wrong with Wikipedia's policies. If this is something new, it should be broadcast widely so that the Wikipedia community can decide whether it really is helpful and adjust policies accordingly so that it can be adopted more widely. This transclusion trick isn't discussed by any policy pages I've been able to find, established or proposed, so I mentioned it over on the Village Pump (here) to draw attention and perhaps get it addressed one way or the other; addressing it early should help avoid contention and extra work in the future. Bryan 08:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace. With regard to the naming: the component pages do not have to satisfy the usual requirements of providing context, because the context is provided by the pages in which these components are transcluded. That could be a reason for a special way of naming (or putting them in another namespace, but the feeling seems to be that they should be in the main namespace).--Patrick 11:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, a remark can be added to the component page, which I have done, as an example, at 2005 English cricket season/Worcestershire v Durham 1-4 June 2005 . This may avoid some of the irritation and confusion of readers.--Patrick 12:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This was reverted by Jguk who says it makes the articles look odd.--Patrick 13:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Compromise attempt
A note to editors who have had an input on the way we do things at this article - I've attempted to suggest a new way of doing it at Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace

British and Irish current events
This page looks like it is going to survive it's VFD, and whilst I've been updating it daily it takes a lot. I don't know if someone keen on cricket would mind posting relevant cricket scores to it? Hiding 18:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone posted the cricket scores to current sports event a couple of months back - we stopped because it wasn't too relevant on a global scale and because of time constraints. It would suit well on a page like this, though. I've started with adding yesterday's final of the ICC Trophy Sam Vimes 18:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Thanks. Hiding 20:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Players flags
What do people think of adding the flag next to the players name on the start of players for Clubs, similar to what they use on the football players. With the amount of Kolpak players it may be interesting to see their country of birth? (unsigned comment by Kroome111)


 * Ooh, I like what you've done to Essex County Cricket Club in 2005. It looks much prettier now. One thing to consider, though - for players like ten Doeschate (who is born in South Africa but plays for the Netherlands cos he's not good enough), do we take the country of birth, country they feel most affiliated to, or country they last played for internationally? Certainly the first one would be the easiest to research Sam Vimes 14:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Blimey good point, yes with Ten Doeschate it is a difficult one. I presume we have to go for who he plays for (affiliated to) otherwise we would have people like Pietersen with a South African flag by him (whatever people feel about it!) and to a lesser extent people like Andrew Caddick, Craig White etc. Kroome111 16:44, 24 August 2005
 * Automatically using the place of birth wouldn't be the best move, I doubt Andrew Symonds would consider himself a Brummie rather than an Aussie. Average Earthman 13:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah - that's basically what I've gone with. However, since the pages are going to be deleted as cruft, it's probably not worth taking a big decision on. Sam Vimes 16:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

CFD
I've nominated Category:2005 English cricket season matches for deletion, since it's empty and not going to be used anymore Sam Vimes 12:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)