Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1

Australian cricket team in England in 1948
This topic is about the 1948 Australian cricket team that toured England without defeat. The five Tests against England are included, as is one for the whole Test series, the main team article, each of the 17 players and subarticles on their exploits in 1948, and the team manager. Many people from WP:CRIC worked on this. This is a FTC nom.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Incredibly in-depth topic, and the epitome of systemic bias, but it is nevertheless an impressive effort, one that meets all the criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I know nothing about cricket but this seems to be a complete topic— Chris! c / t 02:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Fantastic  Aaroncrick  (talk )  Review me! 04:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I have, with some sense of awe, watched this develop. Meets all of the criteria in my estimation. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - just remember that next year the requirements get increased to 50% featured so remember to put a few more of the GAs through FAC. -MBK004 07:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Terrific effort. Johnlp (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - When I first saw this drive, I thought you were having a laugh, that it was going to be beyond your efforts. But, absolute credit, it's been a fantastic piece of work that deserves all the credit it can get. Harrias (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support YellowMonkey is modest. This is, to a large extent, his work, supported occassionally (too occassionally, I'm embarrassed to say) by the members of CRIC. What a spectacular piece of work by an outstanding content contributor. You sir, are a Wikipedia legend. --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Well done! If only England-relatedcticket topics were as well documented... JH (talk page) 09:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Having read the criteria, this meets them. The high standards of the articles involved is commendable.  COI declaration: I just GA'd the main article, Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support another COI declaration, I worked on a couple of them, but I'm sure that does not invalidate my support :) SGGH ping! 11:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The 'unprecedented feat by a touring side' statement gets repeated but that isn't true. I'm amazed that none of the reviewers picked up on this especially as it's mentioned in the opening paragraph on most of the sub articles. --85.210.25.38 (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a tour of a different country (a different continent too). The feat of touring England unbeaten was unprecedented - and astonishing, as, compared with a tour of S.Africa, teams needed to play so many more games and (in those days) against much stronger opposition in the non international matches. The feat was indeed unprecedented. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware of those details but the current wording (The Australians went undefeated in their 34 matches; this unprecedented feat by a touring side) isn't accurate, it was an unprecedented feat by a side touring England. --79.71.175.245 (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the preceding sentence would be clear enough that it meant campaigns in England, but I've tweaked it in any case  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 01:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the only bad side to this is that the standards set by the present topic are going to be so high that many of the other FTs will look like a joke. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Amazing effort by YellowMonkey and company. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Stunning work! -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Just to rain on your parade a little, some important (no offence to the other subjects) articles could be FA if you wanted to hold off. The main series article along with the first through third series could have little stars next to them. 42 articles in total with so many GAs, an impressive amount of FAs, and another batch that could go into the FAC right now is amazing. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With regards to the first three Tests, I have put them through the same preparations as the later two that have already passed, so it's mainly a matter of waiting, as all of the Invincibles articles have taken 3+ weeks each at FAC due to the density of reviews, unlike this FTC. The remaining player subarticles, have been put through the same preparation cycles as the ones already FA, so they are queued up as well, and I would like to get Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Morris, Barnes through quickly as they were the four remaining ones who did the heaviest lifting. As for the moment, I have to get a support on Xa Loi Pagoda raids before opening any new thing.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 12:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - It's finally here!  ceran  thor 15:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support but with a number of caveats. Firstly I think this topic is too big and would prefer it be split into two, possibly three topics. People seem to be in awe of the size of it and the impressiveness therein but it's very unwieldy, some of the articles are not that relevant and there are piping issues. I'll go through how I'd split and then these problems. The Ashes series could be very easily split off into a subtopic. And I think the articles for the players and the articles for the players' involvements in the tour could be two topics, with some careful wording and thought about where to place the lead Ashes article. In fact I'm not sure whether the general players articles should be here at all, in theory everything relevant to the tour in their articles is covered in more detail in their respective tour articles and so including them doesn't add any more information to the topic of the tour. So I would say you could certainly exclude them from the topics (or topic as if you exclude them then this topic would no longer be too big!). Finally the topic box as given above is a mess. You can get a much more appropriate picture at a better size. And the articles should be laid out over 3 equally long columns, with article names piped. I might try and take a crack at fixing this soon, and think how best to pipe the article names because usually Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 for example would be piped down to Donald Bradman as the rest of the article name is given in the topic's lead article's name so within the context of the topic box it is not needed, but as the Donald Bradman article is also included in the topic we obviously can't just do this piping as we would usually. Adding to the feeling the player articles should be taken out. Hmmmm - rst20xx (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We could pipe by cutting off their first name in the subarticle I guess. Can the template be manipulated to make the widths uneven?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 05:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Marvellous work by YellowMonkey in particular. Two or three people in WP:CRIC have given him sterling support but I have to say that the rest of us have only contributed occasionally, although the moral support has never been lacking.  The greatest strength of the project is YM's attention to detail.  I have been reading the articles as they have been produced, over many months now, and I rate them very highly.  The sources used are all credible and mostly impeccable.  Anyone interested in the topic will find what they need here and that is what creating the encyclopaedia is all about, for YM has never lost sight of the reader.  Very well done.  Jack | talk page 05:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Fantastic job! However, I strongly believe that all pages should be consistent, especially among articles in an integrally connected topic. Here are some inconsistencies:
 * Tests: Include a {main|1948 Ashes series} link at the top of the Fifth test like the others. Is there a reason some have Australia's scorecard first but others have England's? Have the Background section either always first or always after the Scorecard. Have {seealso|See also: Australian cricket team in England in 1948} on all or none of the backgrounds.
 * Players: The Style section is sometimes at the beginning, sometimes at the end, and sometimes in the middle; some are included with personality or humour, and some are called Playing style. Some have sections Youth, others Early life, others Early years, others Early days, others Childhood, and others none (which is okay though); sometimes they're combined with early career, others not. Most have Notes and References sections, but some have Notes & references and Bibliography, References and Citations & footnotes, or References and Footnotes & citations. Some have External links while others don't; some could likely be copied. One says "Player Profile: Don Tallon from Cricinfo", but another has "Cricinfo article on Ernie Toshack".
 * Players with team: Shouldn't all of them have the players' photos in the infoboxes? Some have a Background section, others don't, and others have it combined with early tour or early tour matches. Some say just Early tour, others have Early matches, and others have Early tour matches. Some have "This fact can be verified..." with the statistical note while others are blank. Bradman has subtitles for the Test sections, but no other does. Later tour, Later matches, Later tour matches, Post-Test matches, or Closing matches? Role or Playing role? Sam Loxton is missing a see also.
 * Other: In the box above you can pipe the names to hide (cricketer).
 * I know that's a lot, but it's really not hard, mostly just changing section names or ordering them. I undertand that one's format varies over time, but consistency is very important. You've done an amazing job in creating one of Wikipedia's best collections of its best articles and I thank and congratulate you on your wonderful work. Reywas92 Talk  20:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with a lot of what you write, but not about the need for absolute consistency in the sections of the biogs. I like the idea of ensuring they're roughly in the same order, but some need to be different because of the different natures of the people. Keith Miller and Donald Bradman had huge, towering personalities that are enormously notable, and almost as notable as their sporting prowess. These naturally require different treatment to more run of the mill sportsmen, when addressing their personalities. Similarly, some had quite distinctive playing styles (Bradman's grip and general technique caused a sensation) while for others it was less notable. Some had childhoods about which virtually nothing is known, for some it was an important part of who they became. Some had long and distinguished careers after they stopped playing, others vanished from public life. I think YM can find a sensible middle ground and I'd hope you'd support that. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine if they're treated differently in terms of what is included. I'm saying that there should be consistency with the names of the sections. Some have important childhoods and others' are unknown, but the sections should all be called the same thing.
 * ''In the Test match sections of hte match articles, the team batting first is listed first as their results come in first. In this series Australia batted second in all but the Second Test, hence the ordering. All the sections are now backg, scorecard, day 12345 (subject to their being play on that day; d4 t3 was washed out and the t5 ended early, thus no t5) then an aftermath section. See alsos at the top of articles, aren't needed or wantede per MOS, so removed all in lined with T5.
 * Struture of the "in 1948 sub-biogs" are now in the form bg-early-Tests-late-role except for a couple getting to. SA scrapped as in template. The Tests may be in various orders depending on the selection/injury status of the player.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 11:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So for the 1948 specific articles, they are easy.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 11:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * for the general bios things are a bit different as their lives were more varied. One became a politician after retiring (Loxton), others played two sports at a high level at the same time (Lox, Miller, Lindwall), some dodged the army in WWII (Barnes) or were sick (Tallon, Tosh), others were still kids (Harv) and ineleigible for surface, and they started/retired from playing at different times. Others got into lawsuits later on (Barnes and K Johnson). Will discuss more later.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 11:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Just as long as the section names and orders are similar, +/- some if they're more important for a particular person.
 * Images are dependent on PD availability and this varies, also some of the images in the GAs were added ages ago when understanding of PD was thought to be good for pre-1955, but now we know it is pre-1946 so some with 1946-55 era photos have to be removed. Will do  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 11:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Well copyright's not something we want to have all mixed up. Great job so far! If you're done, I'll take another look and then support. Reywas92 Talk  19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Formats should all be right on the 1948-specific parts now  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 04:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Consistency on early life/years, location of style section after chrono cricket career, and ref/notes pairing done  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 19:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I intend to use "Style" and add "and personality" if the person was known to have an unusual attitude towards cricket that manifested itself on the playing arena or during team activities, eg Hassett pranking, Miller rebelling against the captain, Barnes mocking the umpires  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 19:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Amazing job! Thanks for patience with my comments, and I can't wait to see what's next! Reywas92 Talk  03:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A gargantuan, monstrous, and frankly awesome topic with which I can see no obvious issues. However, if I might make one suggestion: The articles on the Ashes series and the five Tests could likely be a subtopic (just a thought because the current topic box is really overwhelming, especially to someone like me who knows nothing at all about cricket. Regardless, I still support. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 16:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree With KV5. Maybe there are some other articles to complete before it's done, but eventually a 1948 Ashes topic as a subtopic of this would make sense, IMO. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any progress on the topic of the subtopic? KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 02:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are only five Tests, so they can be moved without any pain now, if desired  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be advantageous in this case to have a subtopic for the reasons outlined above. Doesn't detract from the greatness of this topic in anyway, since they are all still technically a part of it. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 12:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - can you create a book on this topic? Just click on the link in the top left of the topic box and create a book there, copying the formatting used in other existing books - rst20xx (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - wow, what an effort. I guess might be nice to make a few more of the GAs FAs but not a deal-breaker issue..Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support even though they scored 721 in a day against my home team – I assume that the 15px image size was a typo, so I've increased it to 150px, but isn't there a better image to use than the flag? BencherliteTalk 23:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, in the last year, people have been educating most of us about the need for the image to be PD in the US, not in UK or AUS. Unfortunately, that means that pre-1955 PD-Aus becomes pre-1946 due to some free trade deal in 1996, thus eliminating the official team portrait, as well as the images of everyone who didn't play much until after WWII.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 23:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support of course. An outstanding effort YM.  –Moondyne 00:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Amazing to see complete. Maybe 3 columns tho? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question (I have already supported this) but would The Ashes be a suitable inclusion? I appreciate it's probably not even GA, but it seems a little relevant! Just a thought. Also, I might suggest moving the flag out from the left, it over-balances the look of the box, weighting it too far to one side. Three columns would also be good, or some sort of graphic'd arrangement. SGGH ping! 19:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relvant yes; however, I do not feel its inclusion is necessary. Hopefully we can get the article back to FA!  Aaroncrick  (talk )  Review me! 22:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally I don't think people include the general concept articles, eg, the astronomy articles don't have the gravity or general relativity pages, and other sports articles don't have the general article on NFL, NHL etc.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Question, YM, I can't find a statistical summary of the Test and/or 1st class averages for the series/tour respectively. I thought they'd be in the tour article, but they're not. Does it need to be added there, or do you need a separate, daughter, list article? I wouldn't have thought it would be terribly hard to do (except for the irritating wikimarkup for tables) but I do think it's a notable omission, unless it's there and I just couldn't spot it. I was looking for it to help explain at WT:CRIC why focussing on Bradman is a fallacious way to see the exploits of this team - the 1st class averages especially will show the weight of runs and wickets contributed by the lesser lights, as well as the stars. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes have stats. Or am I missing the picture?  Aaroncrick  (talk )  Review me! 10:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, how, for example, would you compare the weight of runs scored by Harvey, Bradman and Morris on tour? Or find who was top scorer? (Without clicking through a load of articles) --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I list with prose would be best for clarity. Just my opinion though.  Aaroncrick  (talk )  Review me! 10:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be plugged at the bottom of the main tour article I think. The Test stats are at the bottom o fhte Test series article  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Pile-on support. Wizardman  22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts before this gets closed? Nergaal (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * break
 * Note there are 24 supports until now, but it might be worthwhile to consider splitting this topic into at least 2, perhaps three topics before promotion.
 * 1) The first subtopic would be the Ashes series
 * 2) The main topic could remain only with the right side of the list right now.
 * 3) Another possible independent topic could be the players themselves forming a broader topic than the 1948 trip to England.
 * I agree with Nergaal. Several people have suggested this now, but YellowMonkey hasn't responded - rst20xx (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the five Tests are separated out now, but the main Test article is still in there  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 21:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this:

and:

Splitting the players and the players in England 1948 can be complicated as in your proposal you have players in 1948 as a subset of Australian cricket team in England in 1948, but the players bios isn't a subset of simply a listing of the players; there isn't a parallelism unless you make a list simply of the players who were used at a certain point in time, which I don't consider to be useful as a standalone.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 00:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with splitting it into sub-topics. The Tests and the players are essential components of the tour and cannot be viewed as separate entities.  The tour itself is the topic and it entails first-class matches, Test matches and personnel.  Think of the topic as a book.  The articles would then form the book's contents.  Take those contents out of the one volume and you've got three books, none of which can stand alone.  Splitting is a bad idea and I doubt very much if anyone who is knowledgeable about cricket would support it.  Jack | talk page 01:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't look at them as separate topics, because they aren't. Articles within a featured topic's subtopic are all within its bailiwick. For example, a featured topic on baseball awards that is soon-to-be-forthcoming will include both the subtopics of the Silver Slugger Award and the Gold Glove Award. All of these articles are also part of the main topic. Just not linked directly in the box because it's too huge. Like here. As to the redlink above that's a topic of just the players themselves, it could possibly be a featured list that's simply a player roster (see something like one of the old-time baseball all-time rosters for an example). KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 02:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, howsabout this?
 * rst20xx's proposal

and (note the piping out of "with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948"):

I think it's acceptable to pipe the lead of the first topic to "Australian cricketers who toured in England in 1948" but reuse the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 article as the lead. I also think it's acceptable to include the Keith Johnson article in both topics. Finally, the Ashes tests could be broken out into a third subtopic, as YellowMonkey did above, however I feel 25 articles is an acceptable size for a topic so I see no need for this.

I will grant you that it's not immediately obvious that the two topics I have laid out have almost entirely different articles, it appears on the face of it that they share most of their articles. But any curious reader should quickly be able to work out the difference, and I think this way results in two very neat topic boxes - rst20xx (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do like these boxes, but something in my blood still wants to see a list that summarizes the players. Aside from this topic box, there really isn't one list that brings all of the players together, and I think it would be great to bring that all together. I still would like the Ashes to be their own topic. The nice part about that was that it could give you a fourth overview topic (see below), or they could be merged as two subtopics. Images can be adjusted to fit better. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 02:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any impetus left for a split. what next?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  14:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've only seen one person stating opposition to a split, versus several in favour! I think the lack of impetus is more due to lack of agreement on where the split should happen, with a variety of suggestions being made. Sorry it's kind of stalled in the mean time. I think the best way forward is to have a vote on how the split should be done (if indeed a split is favoured) - rst20xx (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we have a vote on how to split the topic, if at all. I'm going to list a variety of options, and we should vote for which option we like, together with rationale. The options are: I think if more people favour a split then whichever is the most popular of the split options (2 to 5) should be what we go with. If more people oppose a split, then obviously we go with option 1. So I'll vote first - rst20xx (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote
 * 1) No split, one topic of 42 articles
 * 2) YellowMonkey's first proposal, ie split off the Ashes articles from the rest, to make two topics of 37 and 6 articles
 * 3) YellowMonkey's second proposal, ie split the topic into three (Ashes, players, players in 1948) with the resultant topics having 6, 20 and 20 articles
 * 4) rst20xx's proposal, ie split off the players articles leaving the Ashes and players in 1948 articles together, with the resultant topics having 19 and 25 articles
 * 5) KV5's proposal, ie split the topic into four (Ashes, players, players in 1948 plus also an overarching topic of which the first three are subtopics) with the results having 6, 19, 19 and 3 articles
 * Option 4 (my proposal) - or possibly option 3. To reiterate, I think we need to split the players articles and players in 1948 articles apart, as these are 36 articles which is too many for one topic. Also I think any option which leaves the players articles and players in 1948 articles in the same topic will have issues when it comes to piping the article names into something concise. I'm not too bothered about whether we split the Ashes articles off to form a third topic but I don't see a need for it as I think it could be included with the players in 1948 articles, producing a topic that covers all the 1948-focussed stuff whilst not being too big. I don't think we need a fourth topic to act as an overview for the other three, as KV5 proposes, I think this can be done in one of the other topics, and to create four topics out of this seems to me to be too many. Finally I don't see the need for a list of the players involved, though it would IMO be quite a useful list - rst20xx (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After completing, and looking at, the four-topic grouping, I prefer the third option, but still believe that a list article would be a valuable addition. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove the image and keep all player articles (which I think is option 4) would be my vote. SGGH ping! 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by this vote. Every topic has an image and all 5 proposals have an image. Options 4 and 5 as laid out above have images appropriately sized, whereas 1-3 have images too big, but this is easily fixed and would be before any actual promotion - rst20xx (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I meant option four but with no image. I don't personally see the Australian flag as necessary. SGGH ping! 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Option 1 I see no need at all for a split. Topics may be as large as they need to be without any problem, and all of these articles fit very well with each other. Reywas92 Talk 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that we're not talking about how large "they may be"; we're talking about how unmanageable (and in many cases inaccessible) a topic of this size is to an uninitiated reader. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO once a topic reaches a certain size, splitting increases, not decreases, the utility of a topic to the reader, due to appropriate subtopic links and proximity of topic boxes, versus topic boxes being unwieldy, and in this case it would also solve the problems as to how to pipe the article names into something condensed, which would be a big issue if all the articles are in one topic - rst20xx (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Options two and four are my next choices, but I stand by my opinion to not split. Honestly, barely anyone looks at topics, and three columns as it originally was is hardly unwieldy. Reywas92 Talk 00:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the whole concept of a vote (per WP:VOTE) and even if a vote was appropriate, WP:FTC is not an appropriate venue for the vote. Who decides who gets a vote for a start, every drive-by commenter, WP:CRICKET people, regulars at WP:FTC. The concept of a "vote" at any featured topic discussion is flawed. There is either consensus or there is not. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The ultimate goal of any article discussion is consensus, and a straw poll is helpful only if it helps editors actually reach true consensus." We have so far had a number of editors give their opinions on all options on the table, in more detail than they have had before. This strikes me as helpful in establishing consensus. Admittedly my previous comment that "I think if more people favour a split then whichever is the most popular of the split options (2 to 5) should be what we go with. If more people oppose a split, then obviously we go with option 1"... was wrong in that it did not suggest any evaluation of the votes being given would occur, which obviously is wrong. So I appologise for that. But I feel that in this case using a straw poll to help establish which option is most agreed upon is worthwhile. We have consensus that these 42 articles should be promoted and it would be ridiculous to see nothing promoted because we can't agree on how these 42 articles are laid out after promotion. Hence having a straw poll to try and better establish people's opinions seems like a natural course of action. There is no attempt to stifle discussion (which is what WP:VOTE is rallying against), in fact discussion had stalled when I initiated the vote - rst20xx (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Option 3 is my preference, although I am partial to the four topic proposal as well. -MBK004 04:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC) see the new proposal below. -MBK004 22:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose the whole concept of a vote in this forum. The proposal to vote is out of order per comments by Mattinbgn above and because a clear consensus has already been established by the people who stated their support in the original discussion at the top of this page. This vote is being attempted by people who were in the minority and think there will be enough of them at this late stage to get most "votes": playing politics just like some kind of New Labour committee.  Consensus has been established and is clearly for supporting the full topic as a feature.  Jack | talk page 19:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposals to split were made long before the standard discussion period ended and the concerns raised therein were never addressed. This isn't Parliament; things aren't "out of order". There's nothing wrong with straw polling, and this is all just suggestion to begin with. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 19:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To begin with? To begin with, we have got consensus of 24 people who stated Support in the main discussion.  There are two or three of you who won't accept this consensus and are trying to engineer a different outcome by means of a "straw poll".  Jack | talk page 20:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not trying to "engineer" anything. From the point of view of an outsider (as I have absolutely no idea about anything relating to cricket), this topic is unwieldy and unmanageably large. We are trying to make it more accessible to those who may encounter it unexpectedly and not be initiated into the world of cricket. Please try to remember that this encyclopedia is not just for experts on a specific topic. To me as a non-cricket follower, this just looks overwhelming. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be assuming that every person who voted support but didn't comment on splitting is opposed to a split. As opposed to the more neutral assumption that they simply didn't give an opinion on whether the topic should be split or not - rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And the fact remains that only three or four people want a split. All the rest (20 of us) who stated their support did so based on the proposal as it was originally presented by YM which is one topic consisting of 40-odd articles.  There is no "assumption" to be made.  Stop trying to twist things to suit your own opinion. Jack | talk page 05:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the facts are that 4 people have said they favour a split, 5 people have said they oppose a split, and the rest haven't stated an opinion. I'm not going to argue about this any more - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The rest have stated their support for YM's original proposal of one topic. Then, when consensus has been established, you come along late in the day and try to change the whole picture by proposing a vote which is completely out of order.  This "straw poll" of yours doesn't count.  The only discussion that does count is the one directly based upon the original proposal.  And now that you haven't got your way, you are "not going to argue any more".  Jack | talk page 07:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Option 1, but generally oppose vote to split at all. Harrias (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose splitting. The FTC was called to assess a group of articles worthiness as a Featured Topic. We've overwhelmingly said they pass the criteria. Splitting it one, two, three, or however many ways won't improve it. --Dweller (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose any kind of split. This has been consistently worked on as a single topic, has come forward for assessment as a single topic, and has been very widely supported as a single topic. Within the individual articles there are plenty of links both to the other articles within the topic and to external articles that further explain cricket terminology to non-cricket followers such as User:Killervogel5. Splitting won't produce any extra clarity: it'd just destroy the coherence of the single topic. Johnlp (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No split is still the most logical  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  13:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm a member of WP:CRIC but haven't had much to do with this topic at all. I'm not really sure of the need to split this obviously defined topic, but it seems wrong to my mind, to suddenly propose a vote (on something that is being led by 2 people), after, as it has been mentioned, 24 people have already supported. I doubt very much that they will all automatically check this page back again, and therefore would not realise that there is the need for a !vote. I see that it has been posted on WT:CRIC but that doesn't necessarily solve the problem. I'm not saying that canvassing those people who have already voiced their opinion is a good idea either, merely that the concept of this voting seems a bit out of place, and frankly, a bit unnecessary. Is there any evidence/topic rules/etc that could show the need or precedence to split this topic that a lot of work has gone into and that stands really well in its own context and geography?&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose any voting and any split. This topic looks good exactly as it was proposed by YellowMonkey. Can we move on please and give proper respect to YellowMonkey's efforts by not fighting on the split. He too doesn't want any split. DSachan (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose split no real need; keeping together emphasises the relationship of the articles to each other that splitting and piping can hide. BencherliteTalk 07:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've put some thought into how to pipe the articles if they're in a single topic so the result is not a complete mess. The concisest layout (with the least redundancy!) that I can come up with is below. Having different indents for different articles, and the same piping for multiple articles, are both unprecedented things, but I think this results in the clearest meaning (within the wider context of the topic box), whilst still reducing redundancy as much as possible. Thoughts? - rst20xx (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I prefer this now over splitting, even though the formatting is unprecedented. -MBK004 22:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Opinion this format looks nicely, but I would still split the ashes test. If there was ever a 1949 topic to be nominated, that one would not be a part of a similar invincibles topic but would be a stand-alone topic. Nergaal (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (1950–51. The Ashes is every 18 months - rst20xx (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Support. I agree this is a much better format than the original.  I trust you have now accepted that your idea about splitting was not a good one?  If so, I think we can definitely move forward now.  Jack | talk page 07:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can you create the book for this topic, at Book:Australian cricket team in England in 1948? rst20xx (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do this, then I will promote - rst20xx (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * !vote to support multiple topics. The Ashes series box is certainly a prime example of what a featured topic should be. Also, having each player listed twice (once in a bio-page, and once in a year-bio-page) seems to be if not overdone then overwhelming to the reader/wikipedian. Piped links for the lengthy page titles seem appropriate, especially since all the pages have so many words in common in their titles. The proposal to do a hanging indent of each player's page and the page for the series looks like a good way to do both. Regardless of the way we display the players, the Ashes series seems concrete and discrete enough to be its own featured topic (well, Good Topic). &mdash;Goodtimber (walk/talk) 22:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. We have already established that the consensus is in favour of a single topic as originally proposed by YM.  The only question now is around the format and it seems that the suggestion by rst20xx in this respect is not meeting any opposition so can we please move on and get this finalised, as other people have already suggested?  Jack | talk page 20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support both the promotion and Jack's suggestion that we get on with it. Wholly indifferent to which of the two ways of formatting the same 42 articles we go for. There's nothing to stop us changing it later, the important thing is that the content is there. WFCforLife (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't the slightest idea (nor desire to check) whether this candidate is truly comprehensive or meets the rules or what-have-you. However, it is clearly an immense and detailed work for which YellowMonkey should be congratulated.  I noticed rst20xx's newest design for the box just now, and prefer that arrangement for the 42; there are some concerns about the same-named pipes, but I think even screen readers will get what they are from context (if they read by column from top to bottom—reading by row would not work).  I do not oppose any other design, though.  Considering the level of support, I say we close and promote, ideally with the newest design.  --an odd name 08:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Book done  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 539 pages. 15.7 MB. I'll promote soon - rst20xx (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Close with consensus to promote - I'm going to change the name of this nomination to be the same as the name of the topic. This topic has 17 featured articles, so it'll need 4 more (21/42) in order to stay featured come 1st September, when the requirements increase to 50% featured. With that said, this is the 100th featured topic - congratulations! rst20xx (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)