Template talk:Infobox cricket tournament

Women's cricket tournaments: player of the series
Presently "player of the series =" renders "Man of the Series" in all cases eg 2000 Women's Cricket World Cup. Any suggestions to tweak this?

(btw, the template has one feature for Women's cricket, the template) --DadaNeem (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Removal of DRS Parameter
Why DRS parameter is removed from the template? --Aniruddh88 (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the use of DRS (or lack thereof) is not a defining characteristic of a tournament. Bear in mind, this infobox is used on articles for tournaments dating back to at least the 1970s, whereas DRS is only a recent invention. If DRS is that important, it can be mentioned in the article; in most cases, I haven't even seen it mentioned there, and if it's not in the article itself, it definitely shouldn't be in the infobox, which is supposed to summarise the contents of the article at a glance. – PeeJay 12:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How many times has the  parameter been used?  Isn't that even less notable than whether DRS was used?  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should keep discussion of other parameters separate for now. I agree that the "official_song" parameter shouldn't exist either, but this discussion is about the "UDRS" parameter. – PeeJay 17:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You should note that the parameter was optional, not required. What you just did that you just removed a two year old work without discussion because *You* think it was not necessary, highly demotivating. But, it doesn't work this way, you should discuss before removing an old submission of someone. Coming back to the topic, like I said the parameter is optional and since it is an important part of an ICC tournament, it should be included in the template. Aniruddh88 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that DRS being an optional parameter is just fine, and as I noted above, far more relevant than any "official song" a tournament may have had (i.e. not a "defining characteristic of a tournament" per PeeJay's opening statement), so I would say: The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep DRS as optional. By all means improve its placement in the infobox, but it's at least relevant to the outcome of some of the more recent tournaments, particularly in the sub-continent.
 * Remove the "official song" parameter which really is trivia and has no relevance at all.
 * I Agree. Aniruddh88 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, PeeJay only removed the field from the 2016 ICC World Twenty20 article after Aniruddh88 put in a source to say it was being used. On closer inspection, the source said no such thing about DRS being used here. Further talkpage discussion of the article in question shows that DRS isn't used for T20I matches. Anyway, back to this. Support keeping the parameter for other tournaments and support ditching the song parameter, as mentioned above.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to clear something here. PeeJay did not remove it from 2016 ICC World Twenty20 due to the lack of proper reference, he removed it because he thought that the parameter shouldn't even exist in the template and without any discussion he went ahead and removed the parameter from the template, too. Aniruddh88 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove DRS, and also the official song. Neither are defining characteristics for tournaments, and every ICC run event uses DRS. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But this isn't an ICC specific template. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not something like a Power Play which is mandatory in every limited over game. It's availability changes in every tournament. 2016 ICC World Twenty20 is an ICC event and it does not use UDRS and like The Rambling Man mentioned, this template is not an ICC specific template. It will also help in showing UDRS availability in Bilateral series. Aniruddh88 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But in bilateral series, whether it's used or not is simple. If India are playing then it isn't, otherwise it is. It just clutters up the infobox. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the use of DRS in a series is rarely covered in depth in reliable sources, and so adding it would count as original research. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is, I'm afraid, nonsense. Just a cursory glance, like two seconds, on Google gives you : BCCI continues to block DRS (ESPN), BCCI's argument against DRS not 100% (ESPN), BCCI a 'long way' from accepting DRS - Richardson (ESPN), Bailey century reopens DRS debate for India (Cricket.au), India refuse to use DRS again as England left frustrated ahead of Test series (Daily Mail), India's stance on decision review system becoming untenable (Sydney Morning Herald), Why universal use of DRS is getting closer, but still not close enough (The Guardian).  That's a few articles from RS that cover the last two or three years.  Seriously, arguing that DRS isn't relevant or pertinent to cricket tournaments is bogus.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, please note that Wikipedia is not for you and me only (people who are aware of things related to cricked). It is for general public too who doesn't follow the game and wants to have knowledge. An optional parameter is never going to clutter the infobox.
 * I think we can work on finding a reliable source. It's not obvious that it will not be covered in Reliable Sources. :) Aniruddh 08:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You would need a reliable source for every series/tournament saying that DRS was/was not being used in that series/tournament. Seems like a lot of work for not a lot of gain.
 * OTOH, I would prefer not having it in the infobox, but if DRS (either being used or not being used) generates lots of coverage in a particular series /tournament, then mention it in the prose section of those series/tournaments instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then again, it may not be a lot of gain for your eye.
 * It's a feature of a 'tournament' so keeping it as an optional param would be a better choice. Aniruddh 10:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Aniruddh88. Besides, you need an RS for anything that's likely to be questioned across all of Wikipedia, removing the parameter altogether because it might be difficult to find (which it won't be, of course the "umpire review" will be noted in each and every scorecard that uses the system) is a nonsense argument.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see a clear reference to DRS on the Cricinfo scorecards - checked some 2015 Cricket World Cup scorecards. If it were on there, I'd be more willing for it to be in on here. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, you didn't see "TV umpire" in each and every scorecard? And even if it wasn't, what difference does that make to whether a parameter is relevant?  It may be (according to some) difficult to cite, but then so are hundreds of millions of other things on Wikipedia.  That shouldn't stop us from trying and using cited facts where possible, should it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a TV (third) umpire for replays e.g. run outs even if DRS isn't used. The presence of a listed TV umpire doesn't prove DRS was being used. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. And even if it wasn't, what difference does that make to whether a parameter is relevant?  I'm done arguing with you about this.  DRS is an important facet of the game, unlike a tournament song, for instance.  DRS is not used (as you claimed) in all ICC tournaments.  If it can be suitably referenced, it will be and can be easily included in the infobox.  Cheers.  (P.S. You want an RS for the 2015 Cricket World Cup?  Try this one which I found in less than two seconds.  How hard?)  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm still at a loss as to why the use of DRS requires mentioning in the infobox. The starting point should be including it in the text of the article. – PeeJay 17:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with PeeJay. If there's lots of non run-of-the-mill sources about DRS in a particular series, then it should be in the prose. Otherwise, clearly DRS wasn't a notable factor in the series. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned it numerous times that it is a feature of a tournament. Aniruddh 18:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there's a deliberate attempt at dullness here, but the point is that you can include the DRS in the prose and the infobox, you do know that, right? Like the names of the teams are in the infobox and in the prose?  This is all boiling down to a few feeble (and frankly laughable) excuses to exclude it (i.e. it's not relevant to the tournament, it's too hard to source).  What's funnier is that someone claims this is all OR and gets shown a variety of RS stating otherwise, and then starts claiming it to be "run of the mill" in third-party coverage.  Credibility fail.  Time for us all to move on and focus on why we have a song in the infobox and leave something as important and useful as DRS as is.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Joseph2302, but my point is that DRS is currently not mentioned in the prose of the 2016 ICC World Twenty20 article (nor any other article), and therefore its relevance to the infobox is dubious. However, I also maintain that even if it were mentioned in the prose, it would not be a significant enough fact to include in the infobox since its use is not a defining aspect of the tournament in the same way that the dates, finalists and top run scorers/wicket takers are. Even the "defending champions" parameter should be deleted, IMO, since that refers to the previous tournament, not the current one. – PeeJay 15:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you need to slow down implementing your own preferences and allow this discussion to pan out. Just because information doesn't appear in the prose, it doesn't mean it shouldn't, it doesn't mean it can't be and it doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the tournament.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it shouldn't appear in the prose; in fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. What I am saying is that it doesn't currently appear in the prose, so the argument for it to appear in the infobox is automatically weakened by that fact. And I'm also not saying DRS isn't relevant, I'm saying it's not a defining feature in the same way that the start and end dates, finalists and top run scorers/wicket takers are. – PeeJay 15:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So we add it to the prose, and hey presto, this line of "argument" evaporates. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So do that... In the meantime, you haven't addressed the argument that DRS is not a defining aspect of the tournament and therefore doesn't need including in the infobox. – PeeJay 15:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I think it is. In fact, a recent report by ESPN stated that the anomalies thrown up by DRS have created two versions of the game, effectively being played with different laws.  So yes, it is a defining factor.  And there's no reason not to include reigning champions (it is often remarked upon during each tournament who the current holders are, e.g. if they are knocked out early, etc).  This is now borderline WP:LAME, for an optional parameter, I think time would be better spent elsewhere.  If it's referenced and it's relevant, there's no problem with it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The defending champions are completely irrelevant! If someone wants to know who the winners of the previous tournament were, they should look at the article for the previous tournament. I'm verging on ambivalent about DRS, but this one is about as absurd as the "official song" and "officially opened by" parameters. – PeeJay 15:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, there are dozens of reliable sources discussing the defending champions, their chances, their performances. I think you've lost your focus.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There may be "dozens" of reliable sources discussing whatever information you like, but not everything needs mentioning in the infobox. After all, you agreed earlier that the official song doesn't need mentioning. The fact is, the "defending champions" parameter relates to the previous tournament and therefore is not relevant to the current article. – PeeJay 15:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But it clearly is otherwise why would dozens of reliable sources be discussing the reigning champions in the context of the current tournament? Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they won the last tournament, obviously. Doesn't mean they need mentioning in the infobox. – PeeJay 16:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, despite the existence of WP:OSE, I've never seen any other sports tournament infobox make any mention of the winners of the previous tournament. Maybe the infobox for the overall article about the competition, but never for an individual tournament. It's ludicrous. – PeeJay 16:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, you need to re-focus and now, reduce the hyperbole. Which parameter tomorrow is "ludicrous" or "utterly irrelevant" or "absurd" or any other one of your extrapolating personal feelings?  I've responded with reliable sources covering all of these things, you are just lumbering from one personal opinion to another to suit your mood.  Sorry, it's not working for me, this discussion really is over.   But before I go, please stop editing the template to suit your own means.  It's clear you have opposition to your personally preferred set of parameters.  It's not like you're even editing the infobox correctly.  So, in the meantime, just pause and allow others to contribute and better, allow someone else to edit the infobox (correctly) once consensus has been established.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * PeeJay, I think it's okay to use defending champions, too. It is relevant to the current tournament. The infobox is still evolving, we cannot just get rid of a parameter that is relevant. Aniruddh 20:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given your track record when it comes to judging the relevance of infobox parameters, you'll forgive me if I don't immediately concede my opinion to you... – PeeJay 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ......and what is the point? Aniruddh 12:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And given your track record of unilaterally deciding what's best for our readers while bodging the edits is any better? Play the ball.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Defending champions
There is no parameter for defending champions. Can you add that? Shah Fahad️ ✉️ 03:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There was previously a defending champions but it was removed by  in 2018 (though not from all the documentation, as there is still mention of it). Look through the discussion above, there was disagreement on whether it should be kept or not. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (I've now removed the 2 unused fields from the template data section, so they no longer appear there) Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, Spike 'em. Not sure how I missed that. But yes, there is absolutely no point in having a "defending champions" parameter in the infobox, since that info pertains more to the previous tournament than the current one. If you want to mention which team won the previous one, do it in the article prose, not the infobox. – PeeJay 12:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Matches played
If I'm not wrong, "Matches played" means that the matches have already been played. This would work fine for past tournaments but would create a confusion when used during future or present tournaments. A notable example is 2021 Indian Premier League. The tournament is yet to start but the infobox says that 60 matches have been played. Shouldn't it be replaced with just "Matches"? Thoughts? ☎️  Churot  DancePop 10:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * maybe you can help? ☎️  Churot  DancePop 09:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it should just be the number of matches played so far. Putting in the number of matches that are due to be played creates issues with the mathematical operations used to display the average attendance per match. – PeeJay 10:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

MVP
I just want to inform editors that I have added the MVP parameter to the template. This is on the basis of List of Indian Premier League awards and specifically the section "Most Valuable Player". Using the existing label "Player of the series" is misleading. (Pinging for their information since this originates from the GA review of 2021 Indian Premier League.) FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Third place
3rd place play-off matches were rare event in cricket before, but most of the quadrangular and pentagular series being held in the associate cricketing world are having 3rd place matches these days. Also with cricket stepping into all-continental games (Asian and African games) and olympics too, can we have a parameter for inserting the third place team in the infobox? Cric editor (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)