Template talk:Infobox cricket team

Not used?
Apparently this infobox is not used by any article. Probably because it fails to serve most needs.  nafSadh did say 01:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * lol, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox cricket team. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Team debuts
This infobox has sections for a team's first-class debut. What is to be done about teams that are not first-class but which use this infobox, i.e. the World Series Cricket teams, or the IPL and Big Bash teams? 92.2.40.191 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Club professional
I've added a 'club professional' field, which will be useful for English League clubs, please check I have done this correctly Vauxhall Bridgefoot (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

2st kit
The bottom of the template's infobox says "1st kit 2st kit 3st kit". Shouldn't it be "1st kit 2nd kit 3rd kit", with normal English ordinal numbers? The feature isn't used much in articles, but I found "2st kit" at Victoria cricket team. I'm reluctant to fix cricket articles ever since I made the mistake of fixing "an innings". Art LaPella (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed it anyway, after getting no response here. Art LaPella (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger
This is a place to discuss the merger of this template with Infobox Test team, Infobox women's national cricket team, Infobox non Test cricket team. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the table below, a straight-up hack-n-slash merger would result in 60 new parameters being added to this template. Can/should that number be trimmed down any? Primefac (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see there hasn't been any further discussion on this anywhere. So here's my two cents. In cricket, as far as I can see, there are two sorts of teams which would be easiest to put into an infobox – national teams and all other teams. See Infobox football club and Infobox national football team. I think that works well, and it would make sense here, as Infobox cricket team and Infobox national cricket team. All the parameters about test matches or test status, World Cups, one day internationals and T20 internationals only apply to national teams. On the other hand, national teams do not require other competition parameters like title1 and Indian Premier League. The non-national team infobox, therefore, would only require the title1 series of parameters to cover all possibilities. Basically it keeps redundant parameters out of both – and it would be relatively straightforward to use a bot to convert the national teams to that infobox and every other instance to the more general template. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Comparison table of all params
Italic values are "updates" (i.e. new parameters added for merger).

Parameter issues in some articles
I noticed that articles such as Bangladesh national cricket team, Pakistan national cricket team, India national cricket team and Australia national cricket team are having infobox parameter issues. Perhaps this template was edited and some of these parameters have been deprecated. Anyone have any ideas as to what is going on? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't think the template itself has been significantly changed, but rather that removed or modified many of the parameter checks (such as removing team_name from the acceptable list), which is why it's throwing an error despite being a perfectly valid parameter. I'll wait for their reply to see if I'm missing something obvious before reverting them. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look . -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, my apologies for this. I have fixed up the parameter list and this should be resolved now. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking on this . I'm still getting an "unknown parameter" notice for caption in Bangladesh national cricket team though. Do you have any idea why that might be happening?
 * Also, I have a question about templates in general. I noticed some of the parameters (e.g., alt_name) require underscores and some do not (e.g., test captain). Is there a reason for this? It would seem to be less confusing (at least in my opinion) to pick one way or the other if possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have fixed that now. In answer to your question, as you can see in the thread above undertook the task of merging the four cricket team infoboxes into one. All of the existing parameters were taken, some of which had underscores and others that didn't and was made into this infobox. I agree with though that having some parameters with underscores and other without is not ideal. Also, I am not really a fan of multiple names for the same parameters eg. imagesizeand image_size. The next step is really to agree on what names to use for each parameter and then eliminate the others. Then go and update each article which is calling up this template which at the moment is 1,033 (includes redirects). Cheeers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The caption parameter is no longer an issue, so thanks for fixing that. Also, thanks for the details on the other parameters. I don't really no much about template, but I do try to fix bad parameters when I can. I'm happy to help out with the updating once everything has been sorted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

is pretty much spot-on regarding parameter names. My main priority was merging the four templates together into one, and sorting out the parameters later (i.e. "let's make sure this works"). Given that it's been a month or two and no one has thrown rocks at me, I'd say we can get started on normalizing the parameters. Personally, I prefer params with underscores, but in the next day or two I'll probably make a new thread to "officially" deprecate any duplicate params. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Debut matches
This template appears to have sections for a team's first class, List A, T20 debuts. Might there be a section for a team making a debut outside of these formats? I am particularly thinking of World Series Cricket but there may be others. Marplesmustgo (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I suppose it depends on if teams regularly have debuts at the WSC or other venues outside of the existing usages (I don't know, which is why I ask). Do you have any examples? Primefac (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure what you mean. It is not the venue that is the problem, it is the format. Until I made changes earlier today, the pages for WSC Australia XI, WSC West Indies XI, WSC World XI, and WSC Cavaliers recorded that these teams made their first-class debuts in 1977/78 or 1978/79. The point is, World Series Cricket and so all these teams were denied first-class status by the ICC, so never made first-class debuts at all. And yet their records plainly deserve some sort of recognition; just not as first-class records. Marplesmustgo (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. I'll have a think about the best way to implement this. Thanks for the clarification. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Normalizing parameters
The current template is a result of the merger of four similar templates via the TFD process. There are, at the time of this post, 239 parameters in use by infobox cricket team, with 58 duplicate parameters (listed below), as well as some major inconsistencies between naming. This discussion is to determine the standard form for parameter names and determine which duplicates to axe. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Question 1: Spaces, underscores, or none
Should spaces be used in multiple-word parameters, underscores, or nothing? (Ex: BPL wins vs BPL_wins vs BPLwins)
 * Underscores - I've always been partial to them, they keep the whole thing together (i.e. no word wrapping), and it splits it in a visually-identifiable way. Primefac (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Underscores - look neater to me. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Question 2: Full name vs short name
Should a full (non-abbreviated) name be used? (Ex: cricket_world_cup_apps vs wc_apps OR womens_cricket_world_cup_apps vs wwc_apps).
 * Abbreviated - the /doc of a template exists for a reason, so even if you don't know what wc_apps means, you can always look it up. Plus, it keeps things a lot simpler (no need to worry about mistyping something in womens_cricket_world_cup_apps. Primefac (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Abbreviated per Primefac --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Abbreviated - more chance of errors with overly verbose names (though a lot of time I will just c+p). Comments on individual fields below Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Question 3: Duplicate params
Based on the answers to Q1-2, most of these may "choose" themselves, but there are others that might need exemptions (e.g. we might actually want to have all five of the "name" options). If a definite "yes" is given, it will be in bold. If a definite "no" is given, it will be struck through.


 * My default position based on 1&2 above would be to have abbreviations with _ between words


 * 1) Name - Undecided on name or team_name. Others should be deprecated
 * 2) Image - image
 * 3) Image Caption - caption
 * 4) Image Size - image_size
 * 5) Coach / Captain - remove any mention of current
 * 6) One day captain - Not sure how much this is used outside of Test teams. If it is, then should be od_captain
 * 7) First type of match - first_test ; first_odi; first_t20i etc
 * 8) World tournaments - wc_apps; wc_first; wc_best, same for wt20
 * 9) World Twenty20 Qualifier - there is inconsistency in here: they should be wt20q_whatever and Women's World T20 qualifiers should be moved to wwt20q_whatever Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In similar vein to point 6, t20i_captain should also be t20_captain Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've updated template / doc / table above to make wt20 and wwt20 parameters consistent. There remains a problem that a number of "Xyz national women's team" pages make use of the parameters that point to men's cricket tournaments, not the women's versions. Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. The women's template was merged in after the "main four" were done, which might explain any potential duplication. Those templates will probably have to be manually updated (that, or we go based on the template call to a redirect if it still exists). Primefac (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit more AWBing, and think all the women's team infoboxes now use the correct parameters Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for starting this thread. I agree with both you and regarding the underscores vs the spacing. As for the name parameter I prefer to have just team_name and remove the others. image, image_size, caption and alt are common across most infoboxes, remove the duplicates. Agree with Spike &#39;em on points 5 to 9 above. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

General discussion
Still concentrating on national teams (men and women), first_match / first_wmatch currently go underneath Test / Women's Test, which I think is confusing. They could possibly go in the ICC section, or a separate non-official international section. Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally fine. I'll be honest, while I do occasionally watch cricket I've been approaching this more from a template editor perspective, since I'm not intimately familiar with the various divisions and breakdowns. Feel free to move label/data pairs wherever they make the most sense. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do. I've spent a while going through the pages with unknown parameters report and it seems about half the pages using the template have non-standard parameters, and no seeming rational behind them! I may give up on that now. Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That happens everywhere, some people don't always know how templates work and think that any parameter will show up when added. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2019
A new category for best results of a team in a tournament is needed. Please, let me edit this infobox. Shrestha.shome (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You will unlock the ability after 4 days and 10 edits automatically. RhinosF1 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , no offense but that's terrible advice. On a page with 900+ transclusions, we should probably have a discussion about what this change will look like. Just any old tournament? Does it have to be notable? We already have a "best ranking" for the majority of the tournaments/formats that are out there, so it would be good to discuss first before staring an edit war over potentially controversial changes. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My advice was more aimed at semi-protected articles in general. Bigger changes do require consideration and discussion first. RhinosF1 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

An alignment issue
In the doc file of this template, I think there is an alignment issue under the official website inside the infobox. Please check if it can be corrected. Pinging who have made significant edits to this template. Adithyak1997 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , not sure what you mean - the website param is lined up the same as the others. Primefac (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"First International" Label
The infobox uses the label First International under the International cricket/Women's International cricket segment. I guess this should be changed to First Official. ICC hasn't granted any of the T20 matches between associate (or past affiliate) members International status before 2019. Same goes for the ODIs. Unless those were matches of WC/Qualifier matches played by teams without ODI status didn't get any ODI status. The same rule goes for the Women sides. So the point is since they are not international (even though played between two international sides, definition of "international" is something different in ICC) the label should be changed to official or something relevant. Now if the team has played their first official before playing any ODIs or T20Is we already have section for first Test/ODI/T20I/WODI/WT20I. So everything is set. If the first match of a country is actually an international (like Australia and England) then the first official is not actually needed or can be mentioned in bracket that it was international (Here I found another idea that, for these countries if we actually need label like this then we can split the labels into two different; First Official and First International and use the appropriate one). Anyways I guess I cleared the point above I guess. Still in a nutshell my proposal is change the label of "First International" to "First Official" (addition: and add the version and result if possible just like the results are given for football teams) --PratyyaG (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

2022
Does anyone know how to make the reference in e.g. "num_odis_this_year" point to the 2022 summary on Cricinfo instead of 2021? I assume the URLs needs updating, but I am unfamiliar with messing with templates! Bs1jac (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, We need to change the url in this template i.e {{subst:Infobox cricket team}}. Fade258 (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I worked this out and fixed it a while back, but forgot to say so on here. Thanks anyway! Bs1jac (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding split of Coach parameters
Hi all, Recently, I noticed that someone has split up Coach parameter into two individual parts i.e test and odi coach. Is that necessary? Please clarify me with strong reason. Fade258 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)