Talk:2013–14 Ashes series

Attendances
All other sport articles mention their attendances. I have also created a Wikitable here for the attendances taking the information from the scorecard and report from ESPN Cricinfo. Please don't erase these. You can offer another way of representing it if you wish, but please don't erase these. Because all other sport articles mention their attendances, so should we do. Itz arka (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Score Presentation
Why is the score being listed as "wickets for runs" when almost every other site in the known universe lists it as "runs for wickets"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.232.123 (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In Australia, where this series is being played, the universal practice is "wickets for runs". "Runs for wickets" is never, ever used by any Australian source. "Runs for wickets" is used widely (indeed almost always) on Australian-themed cricket articles as the WP:CRICKET style guide states "Team score format: Adopt the consensus style of writing in the host country of the tournament, i.e. 1/141 or one for 141 for matches in Australia, and 141/1 or 141 for one for most other countries. Use slashes when shortening scores."


 * Happy for there to be a dicussion about the appropriateness of this peculiar Australian practice being used in Wikipedia but this discussion would be better at WT:CRICKET. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I admit - I did not know that, and I have learned something new. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.232.123 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

FFS, how about some sourcing?
Australia regaining The Ashes has been nominated for an In The News entry on Wikipedia's main page. An Admin who might have posted it there has correctly pointed out that absolutely nothing in the three match reports is sourced. What on earth have you editors been doing?

Can anyone who did those reports quickly add the sources they used please? HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't write the original reports but for whoever is interested, I've added a basic reference to each test with the match summary. From some quick fact checking the content looks correct.  CaptRik (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, yet again you have shown your attitude to be extremely poor. It's a wonder anyone added sources to the article when you asked like that! – PeeJay 18:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why? Writing that much content with no sourcing at all is simply appalling. It was preventing the news of the Australian win getting to the main page. It simply wasn't good enough and needed some firm attention. Did you add some unsourced content? Why? HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not a particular proponent of WP:CIVIL, are you? – PeeJay 20:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * An alternative approach I could have taken was to simply delete all the unsourced content. How would that have rung your sensitive little bell? And civility is entirely in the eye of the beholder. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A better alternative would have been to simply ask for better sourcing without the need for belittling the editor who added the reports in the first place. No need to be a dick about it. You're right, it's not difficult to add sources, but if it was that easy, why didn't you just do it yourself? – PeeJay 21:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This needed quick attention. Convince me that a nice, polite request would have worked. HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If it needed such quick attention, why didn't you do it yourself? – PeeJay 00:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I didn't know where the content had come from. Presumably those that added it did. And even now editors at In the news/Candidates are suggesting it could do with more sourcing than it currently has. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd better get cracking then. – PeeJay 00:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd better head off to your reading classes. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't know where the content came from? I got that. Well, it's in the news, so I assume you should be able to glean the info from whatever news websites arseholes like you read. – PeeJay 00:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Bank Ashes?
The series was not known by its sponsors name outside Australia. I followed the series very closely and was not aware of the alternative name. It also could be construed that the sponsors changed the first line for their own purposes. I think "known for ... Series" should be moved to the end of the first paragraph as "The series for sponsorship reasons was also known as the ..." PeterGrecian (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe sponsorship names should generally take a much lower priority. It's not our job to to the sponsor's marketing. Is there a Wikipedia policy on this? HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)