Talk:West Indian cricket team in England in 2007

Infobox
Please keep all unknowns in the infobox as TBC

Revert
I just reverted a few of the previous edits - contrary to the above edit, the Infobox looks incredibly messy when filled with "TBC" "TBC" "TBC". It doesn't look bad when empty so there's no point in putting them there. And, we had some discussion on the new First Class template here - whereby the general consensus was to list every century and four-for or better, and as the template now allows as such, we should be focusing on relaying information that displays the situation instead of just 1 from both bowling and batting. Thanks. AllynJ 05:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the above. The TBCs look rubbish and I'm very glad they're gone. Sam Vimes | Address me 07:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, though i had to edit the infobox because the runs and wicket takers were switched so that the England batsmen were listed under the West Indies instead of England and vice-versa.Blackhole77 | Address me 4:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC-5)

Splitting the article
Anyone else think the Quadrangular series should now be split? Not only is it not actually hosted in England but with 4 teams participating I think it could do with it's own page, perhaps Quadrangular Series in Ireland in 2007? AllynJ 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree. With the 6 matches and some background story it could have its own page. Wild8oar 07:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Could do with some more information but there's not much floating about yet; whilst Cricinfo have a page on it it is (almost literally) empty, and CricketArchive haven't got it listed yet. I'm sure closer to the time there'll be plenty. :thumbsup: AllynJ 18:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Who won the toss ...
... is a significant piece of information that is highly relevant to the development of a test match and should, in my view, be included. TerriersFan 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There's no field for it in the template - one was discussed for the One-day template but nothing was ever decided upon. The only other way to include it right now would be to write a sentence or two on it, though it would look out of place without writing a fair amount on the match itself. AllynJ 10:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to tread on toes when something is agreed but is there any chance of getting the template amended? TerriersFan 22:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is, although it's somewhat difficult to think of a good way to implement it. It is one of those instants where it should be discussed at the template's talk page/WP: Cricket's talk page first though, I think; contrary to WP:BOLD.
 * Currently, the best way I can think of doing it is to place it below the date, simply stating:

"England, Chose to bat"
 * Or whatever. It's not the most ideal of situations. But to the contrary, who won the toss still doesn't give a full picture... Ie Sarwan winning the toss in the first Test match, choosing to bowl then England posting 553/5d could mean one of three things: West Indies bowling was terrible, England's batting was excellent, or Sarwan chose the wrong option. Without prose there's really no way to distinguish between such situations. AllynJ 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether the captain made good use of the toss or not possibly makes its field even more relevent. It shows how well they know the strengths of the batting attack, the bowling skill and the wicket itself. It doesn't give a full picture of the game; that's what the scorecard as a whole is for.Tony2Times 01:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Titled matches
In previous seasons, layouts of a series have seen matches individually titled as well as being under a seperate title. I've changed the Tests to show what I mean, but there may have been some discussion to scrap this I'm unaware of. If not shall I change the ODI matches? I think it looks nicer anyway, also that way you could have the matches in chronological order rather than by match grouping (so the tour matches are placed properly) as the title shows clearly the match. Not that the last part has to happen because of the first. Tony2Times 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was any discussion as such, however it seems a bit odd to put dates in the title when they're listed just one line below in the mini-scorecard; other than that, yes, it's a good idea I'd say. :) AllynJ 11:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Match report
Er... is it just me who thought it was a _good_ idea to have them? User:Greatestrowerever just removed them, but I think that's a) not the way to go about it but b) also a bad thing for the page. Thoughts? AllynJ 15:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well naturally I'm slightly biased because I wrote it, but as I said it was probably over detailed as I got carried away. Still though, taking it ALL away? Some interesting things have happened in the match, and if you don't want to read it - skip over it. It used to be the way that all matches had brief commentary written after them and it was one of the reasons I came here rather than CricInfo. I'm up for returning back to the previous edit, but I don't know how.Tony2Times 16:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't even have a problem with the length, personally... Maybe if it was going to FAC it would need to be shortened for general summary style, but I definitely think removing it was bizarre. I see no precedent for removing it either, the excellent West Indian cricket team in England in 1988, a Featured Article, has reasonably long prose on every single Test match after all. AllynJ 16:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Reports are key if the article is ever going to progress beyond a glorified stub. Clearly needed. Sam Vimes | Address me 17:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I edited over someone else's commentary due to some habitual clicking, someone might wanna roll back to the previous edit.Tony2Times 18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind - I felt that the old version lacked sources and had the occasional English bias, think my version is a bit more sourced and neutral, but you're of course free to improve it. I'll read through what you wrote and try to incorporate that too. Sam Vimes | Address me 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Captains
This article does not state all the captains in the main heading, for example Darren Ganga was captain after the second test. Chris Gayle captained the West Indies in the Twenty20 games and the first 2 ODIs while Andrew Strauss captained England on the first test. Paul Collingwood also captained England in the limited overs games. This should be included in the article as it is a important piece of information and should be in a obvious area such as the main table at the beginning. Monsta666 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This might be asking a bit much but I think this article should be called Wisden Trophy 2007, but I'll leave it up to you to decide. I thought about what I said and take back my earlier statement this article should NOT be called Wisden Trophy 2007.

I am doing some work on the Wisden Trophy and would be grateful if somebody could help. As this article is related to the Wisden Trophy.Monsta666 23:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)