This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of
cricket. Please participate by visiting the
project and
talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based
WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in
one big list and in
CSV format)
Australian cricket team in England and Scotland in 2009 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
The
Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
England squad
Is the squad that has been entered an educated guess or is there a reference we can access?
I was generally of the view that home teams don't actually pick squads in the same manner as visiting teams. Rather, we use the 1st Test 12, and then add to it as the series progresses, as required. --
Perry Middlemiss (
talk)
10:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
A 16-man squad is set to be announced today for the England training camp, but it hasn't been announced quite yet, so I think someone's been guessing. Also, I think you're right that we should reduce the list to the XII from the First Test. –
PeeJay11:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
This has been discussed before, but the general feeling was to stick with 'in England' because the majority of matches are played in England and because tours are often refered to as 'tour of England' even when matches are played outside England. BTW If you were to rename this page you would need to rename a lot as many tours have included matches against Glamorgan. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
17:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)reply
The article covers the whole tour rather than just England matches so I presume you're suggesting placing the tour matches and Scotland ODI onto another page. I'm not keen on doing that, the page isn't overly long so I see no reason to split it from the current scope of the whole tour. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Common sense should be the key; they don't call it the Tour De France + six other countries. The central object here is England. (
194.34.10.1 (
talk)
12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC))reply
In my hand I hold an Encyclopaedia Britannica, referring to the Melbourne Olympics that also had the equestrian in Stockholm owing to quarantine issues. The article is called '1956 Olympic Games In Melbourne', not '1956 Olympics In Melbourne Except For One Bit In Sweden Because Of Stringent Customs Laws'. The deviation from the central tour object (England) can be explained within the article itself. (sevendaughters 18:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sevendaughters (
talk •
contribs)
But the TdF visits other countries as well so I imagine you would also want that changed because it's factually incorrect. Could you explain why that one shouldn't be changed yet this should? --
Jpeeling (
talk)
17:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)reply
No name for this article has my preference, but I'd like to say that their is a big difference between this cricket tour and the Tour de France. "Tour de France" is an official name, that's the name of a competition. Of course, it's not a whole "Tour" (because the race don't all go all France round, as "Tour" in French could suggest), nor is it limited to France, but that's its official name, and the one used by everybody to call it. That's absolutely not the case of any of the different "Australian cricket team in [wherever you want] in 2009", because their seems to be no official name for this tour (it's not a competition in any case, even if it includes one).
OrangeKnight (
talk)
18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Have you got a source for TdF being the official name because I would imagine it would be Le Tour De France, this encyclopedia uses TdF because it's the
common name equally 'tour of England' is the most common in this occasion. A quick search of Google News reveals
72 hits for "tour of England" with a grand total of zero for both British Isles and Great Britain. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
19:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not really a huge fan of cricket, and I apologise if this has been brought up before, but couldn't this just be solved by renaming the article "2009 Ashes series" like the
2005 one?
Sky83 (
talk)
17:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry, forgot the second part of my comment before I saved this lol. I meant to distinguish between the parts of the tour, and eliminate the need to use a country in the title, since I gather the one test in Wales is the one causing the problem. The other part of the tour could be included in an article with this title. Maybe my lack of interest in cricket means I'm looking at this too simply, I don't know lol.
Sky83 (
talk)
17:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
No, because this article covers more than just the Ashes series. I think that the articles about the Ashes tests should be split into a new article (
2009 Ashes series), and then this article should be kept for the tour matches and the ODI/Twenty20 series. –
PeeJay10:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes it does, but we're not talking about the cricket board. Australia is not just in England, it is also in Wales and Scotland, the details of which are covered in this article. That makes the article's title inaccurate and adds to the already worldwide confusion of the difference between England and the UK.
Welshleprechaun (
talk)
21:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)reply
It is not Wikipedia's job to correct misconceptions, only to report facts as they are presented by other reliable sources, such as Cricinfo or CricketArchive or the BBC or Sky Sports, all of which refer to this tour as a tour of England. They may mention that the odd match is being played in Wales and Scotland, but the vast majority of the tour is being played in England. –
PeeJay21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)reply
What's the sense in reporting incorrect "facts". If this article is about Australia in England, then the Scottish and Welsh tests should be removed. Yes the majority are in England but the title of this article suggests that all are in England. I can see no reason why the title can't be changed other than nationalistic opinions.
Welshleprechaun (
talk)
12:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I think you're being far too sensitive about this essentially minor issue. In cricketing terms, this is a tour of England: get over it. –
PeeJay12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Is there any chance someone can post the over-by-over or an update every 15 mins in here on matchdays, then we'll revert to the previous settings after the day's play? It's just I'm in work and my two friends who email updates are both AWOL and this test is hung on a knife-edge. (sevendaughters 10:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sevendaughters (
talk •
contribs)
Cricinfo and most of the British dailies run a ball by ball (or over by over) service. However, there is no need to watch either. England will have the match won by the end of the morning session. And as I write this Haddin has just been dismissed, so make that by drinks. Cheers,
Mattinbgn\talk10:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Sadly I don't have access to 'non-academic' sites, hence my request! I'll take that prediction though. If updates can be posted to my talk page then I guess that wouldn't impinge in the more serious discussions above this one... (sevendaughters 10:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sevendaughters (
talk •
contribs)
These pseudo-philosophical debates about wikipedia 'is' or 'is not' could go on forever. I was asking for people to help a brother out - a fellow cricketing brother no less, with all the implicit connotations of sportsmanship and gentlemanliness that takes in - and then amended my post to ask for people to post them on my talk page as to not interrupt the general business of the site (which they did). However, it is difficult to assume good faith when you patently didn't bother to read my post where I mentioned this and also that I had no access to the aforementioned sites. Boo to you. Yay to the others who helped out. --sevendaughters 08:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sevendaughters (
talk •
contribs)
Since the event is taking place in Britain, it makes far more sense to use the time zone that the country is in at the moment, which is BST. –
PeeJay20:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)reply
POV issues with summary of Fourth Test
Is it just me or is the summary of the Fourth Test loaded with POV after the first day? Examples include (with bolding added by me to emphasise the offending parts):
"After lunch the onslaught continued"
"the Australian tail pounded the meager English attack"
"Clark also boomed 3 sixes" (this one not so much, but still...)
"Johnson came on producing classic left arm swing bowling"
"England in complete disarray"
"facing imminent defeat with the momentum of the series now flowing firmly in Australia's favour"
"Anderson poorly played at a short ball"
"Hilfenhaus later bowled a beautiful outswinger"
"took the catch magnificently"
"Their breathtaking eighth-wicket partnership"
"demolishing his stumps"
I'm not saying that these statements aren't correct, only that they need to be written in a far more encyclopaedic tone if this article is to be taken seriously. For the record, POV isn't about giving both sides of the discussion flowery language, but about giving it to neither and treating the subject with absolute neutrality. –
PeeJay06:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Agreed, written in a tabloid journalistic style. This is an encyclopedia, not a red top newspaper. It probably needs a complete rewrite. --
Mattinbgn\talk10:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I guess when you mean neutrality you want it to sound like England weren't as bad as they were. Also if you have a problem with the language its taken mostly from the BBC articles references.
Brudder Andrusha (
talk)
12:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Neutrality is telling the facts as they happened, not embellishing them to fit your own personal opinion of the subject. Like I said, the account isn't wrong, it's just far too flowery. And if the language was taken from the BBC's articles, then surely there's a copyright violation here? –
PeeJay12:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Given that I am Australian and a supporter of the Australian cricket team, I have little interest in making the England cricket team look good. Perhaps you might consider not being so personal in your responses. --
Mattinbgn\talk12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
What is "flowery"? The adjectives give a descriptive narrative of the account. As far as copyright violation - Check all the references if you accuse me of this.
Brudder Andrusha (
talk)
12:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
See
wikt:flowery, meaning No. 3. No one has accused you of anything, it was merely noted that copying sentences directly form other sites (as you have claim to have done from the BBC website) could be seen as an infringement of copyright. Secondly, as I said above, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper article, and as such should be written in an appropriate tone. The BBC can use different language than us here because thaey have a different audience and a different goal. Using excessive adjectives, or overly colourful ones is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. The article should not express the opinion of the writers (as the section in question does) but should simply report the facts. The section in question may be quite acceptable in a blog or a newspaper as a lively account of the days events but it is not appropriate here. I repeat, the section needs a complete rewrite to be acceptable. --
Mattinbgn\talk12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Because there is no obligation on me as a volunteer to do anything. Look, your contributions are welcome but in this case they are not appropriate for this article. --
Mattinbgn\talk12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
And I didn't describe the days' play because I was out during days 2 and 3. As you will note, I wrote the summary of Day 1, and without sounding arrogant, that summary is probably a good example you should follow. –
PeeJay17:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
IMO, its too bland and does not capture the human element of the game. Facts and statistics are for almanacs. BTW I didn't enter the 3rd day's play only the second day's play. I did add some of the information for the 3rd day which is referenced from a source. Also if references are to be used I find it not right to change the tone of what the original author intended and then cite it here.
Brudder Andrusha (
talk)
18:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
And here we have the root of the problem. As you have said, it is only your opinion that facts and figures are too "bland", but it is not up to you to determine the appropriate tone for the encyclopaedia. With good writing, it is very easy to capture the ebbs and flows of the game. If two batsmen stay in and build a big partnership, then you can write a bit more about that, whereas if three quick wickets fall then write about them in quick succession. The writing does not require extra embellishment. Furthermore, references are used to cite facts, not as a basis for the tone of the writing in the article. Just because the author of a news story has used a particular tone, does not – and normally should not – mean that we should use the same tone! –
PeeJay19:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Each to their own. As you said originally the facts with the adjectives were not wrong. The fact is also that destruction of the English team in three days cannot be just be sterilized. IMO, an encyclopaedic entry of this event in your style diminishes what took place. As to purrfect writing I'll leave that to someone else.
Brudder Andrusha (
talk)
20:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, I did have time to make a point of it here. What's your point? That my priorities should be with writing articles for ultimately no reward instead of actually living my life? Sure.... –
PeeJay07:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I have been attempting to create a seperate page for Australia's ODI against Scotland, on the basis that Scotland is an associate member of the ICC in its own right, and that as England's game against Ireland has a seperate page, so should this one. This has been repeatedly redirected on the grounds that "this is all part of the same tour". The basis for this is Cricinfo's list of the fixtures. However, Cricinfo list the tour as being to England and Scotland. As a consequence, if the Scotland game does not warrant its own page, then this article should be renamed as "Australian cricket team in England and Scotland in 2009".
Hammersfan 27/08/09, 16.37 BST
I'm starting to think that, perhaps, the Scotland v Australia ODI "series" should have its own article, similar to the
English cricket team in Ireland in 2009 article. Although the match is still part of Australia's tour of Great Britain, I'd prefer to think of it as a "tour within a tour". –
PeeJay15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I disagree, if we start to allow single matches to have articles then where do we stop, there's nearly 3,000 ODIs and 2,000 Tests so do you consider them all notable for stand-alone articles? We even have an article on a
single first-class match, there's been over 50,000 first-class matches in cricket history, same question are they all notable? We don't need articles for every single 'tour' and in fact many proper tours don't, and I've never heard any uproar about Wikipedia lack of coverage on England tour of South Africa in 2004/05 for example. If there was any sense here, the Ireland-England and Scotland-Australia ODIs would be redirected/merged with
International cricket in 2009. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Obviously not every Test, ODI and Twenty20 International is notable enough for its own article, but when a series involving two ICC members (albeit one as an associate member) includes just one match, surely it's fair enough for that series to have its own article. That is the reason why we have
English cricket team in Ireland in 2009 (also because that match wouldn't get covered anywhere else!) –
PeeJay00:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
It's not a series though is it; a series by definition is a group of matches. What is the scope of the England cricket team in Ireland article? It's one ODI, and I don't see what's notable about this ODI compared to 3,000 others, can somebody tell me why this ODI merits its own article? As I said above the International cricket in 2009 article is a perfectly good location for it to be covered, as it already is. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
08:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Surely any series involving two ODI-playing nations merits an article, whether the series involves one match or 100 matches? You can argue semantics about whether one match constitutes a series, but according to
Cricinfo and
Cricket Archive, it definitely is a series. –
PeeJay16:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
It's not semantics, it's simply English. I have taken a look at both those links but can't find any mention of these ODIs (England-Ireland, Scotland-Australia) being called a series. In fact when I look at that Cricinfo link I see the England-Ireland ODI is listed as 'England in Ireland ODI Match' when all previous entries under the One-Day Internationals heading (barring a multiple team tournament) contain the word series, therefore Cricinfo acknowledge the fact that one match cannot be considered a series. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
10:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Fine, but you've still failed to address the fact that England, Ireland, Australia and Scotland are ODI-playing nations, so an article about matches between those sides should be perfectly viable! –
PeeJay20:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Articles covering matches are fine, however an article covering a single match is different. I have notified
WT:CRIC of this discussion and suggest the conversation continues there as this matter doesn't directly relate to this article. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
20:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of
cricket. Please participate by visiting the
project and
talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based
WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in
one big list and in
CSV format)
Australian cricket team in England and Scotland in 2009 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
The
Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
England squad
Is the squad that has been entered an educated guess or is there a reference we can access?
I was generally of the view that home teams don't actually pick squads in the same manner as visiting teams. Rather, we use the 1st Test 12, and then add to it as the series progresses, as required. --
Perry Middlemiss (
talk)
10:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
A 16-man squad is set to be announced today for the England training camp, but it hasn't been announced quite yet, so I think someone's been guessing. Also, I think you're right that we should reduce the list to the XII from the First Test. –
PeeJay11:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
This has been discussed before, but the general feeling was to stick with 'in England' because the majority of matches are played in England and because tours are often refered to as 'tour of England' even when matches are played outside England. BTW If you were to rename this page you would need to rename a lot as many tours have included matches against Glamorgan. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
17:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)reply
The article covers the whole tour rather than just England matches so I presume you're suggesting placing the tour matches and Scotland ODI onto another page. I'm not keen on doing that, the page isn't overly long so I see no reason to split it from the current scope of the whole tour. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Common sense should be the key; they don't call it the Tour De France + six other countries. The central object here is England. (
194.34.10.1 (
talk)
12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC))reply
In my hand I hold an Encyclopaedia Britannica, referring to the Melbourne Olympics that also had the equestrian in Stockholm owing to quarantine issues. The article is called '1956 Olympic Games In Melbourne', not '1956 Olympics In Melbourne Except For One Bit In Sweden Because Of Stringent Customs Laws'. The deviation from the central tour object (England) can be explained within the article itself. (sevendaughters 18:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sevendaughters (
talk •
contribs)
But the TdF visits other countries as well so I imagine you would also want that changed because it's factually incorrect. Could you explain why that one shouldn't be changed yet this should? --
Jpeeling (
talk)
17:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)reply
No name for this article has my preference, but I'd like to say that their is a big difference between this cricket tour and the Tour de France. "Tour de France" is an official name, that's the name of a competition. Of course, it's not a whole "Tour" (because the race don't all go all France round, as "Tour" in French could suggest), nor is it limited to France, but that's its official name, and the one used by everybody to call it. That's absolutely not the case of any of the different "Australian cricket team in [wherever you want] in 2009", because their seems to be no official name for this tour (it's not a competition in any case, even if it includes one).
OrangeKnight (
talk)
18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Have you got a source for TdF being the official name because I would imagine it would be Le Tour De France, this encyclopedia uses TdF because it's the
common name equally 'tour of England' is the most common in this occasion. A quick search of Google News reveals
72 hits for "tour of England" with a grand total of zero for both British Isles and Great Britain. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
19:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not really a huge fan of cricket, and I apologise if this has been brought up before, but couldn't this just be solved by renaming the article "2009 Ashes series" like the
2005 one?
Sky83 (
talk)
17:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry, forgot the second part of my comment before I saved this lol. I meant to distinguish between the parts of the tour, and eliminate the need to use a country in the title, since I gather the one test in Wales is the one causing the problem. The other part of the tour could be included in an article with this title. Maybe my lack of interest in cricket means I'm looking at this too simply, I don't know lol.
Sky83 (
talk)
17:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
No, because this article covers more than just the Ashes series. I think that the articles about the Ashes tests should be split into a new article (
2009 Ashes series), and then this article should be kept for the tour matches and the ODI/Twenty20 series. –
PeeJay10:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes it does, but we're not talking about the cricket board. Australia is not just in England, it is also in Wales and Scotland, the details of which are covered in this article. That makes the article's title inaccurate and adds to the already worldwide confusion of the difference between England and the UK.
Welshleprechaun (
talk)
21:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)reply
It is not Wikipedia's job to correct misconceptions, only to report facts as they are presented by other reliable sources, such as Cricinfo or CricketArchive or the BBC or Sky Sports, all of which refer to this tour as a tour of England. They may mention that the odd match is being played in Wales and Scotland, but the vast majority of the tour is being played in England. –
PeeJay21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)reply
What's the sense in reporting incorrect "facts". If this article is about Australia in England, then the Scottish and Welsh tests should be removed. Yes the majority are in England but the title of this article suggests that all are in England. I can see no reason why the title can't be changed other than nationalistic opinions.
Welshleprechaun (
talk)
12:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I think you're being far too sensitive about this essentially minor issue. In cricketing terms, this is a tour of England: get over it. –
PeeJay12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Is there any chance someone can post the over-by-over or an update every 15 mins in here on matchdays, then we'll revert to the previous settings after the day's play? It's just I'm in work and my two friends who email updates are both AWOL and this test is hung on a knife-edge. (sevendaughters 10:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sevendaughters (
talk •
contribs)
Cricinfo and most of the British dailies run a ball by ball (or over by over) service. However, there is no need to watch either. England will have the match won by the end of the morning session. And as I write this Haddin has just been dismissed, so make that by drinks. Cheers,
Mattinbgn\talk10:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Sadly I don't have access to 'non-academic' sites, hence my request! I'll take that prediction though. If updates can be posted to my talk page then I guess that wouldn't impinge in the more serious discussions above this one... (sevendaughters 10:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sevendaughters (
talk •
contribs)
These pseudo-philosophical debates about wikipedia 'is' or 'is not' could go on forever. I was asking for people to help a brother out - a fellow cricketing brother no less, with all the implicit connotations of sportsmanship and gentlemanliness that takes in - and then amended my post to ask for people to post them on my talk page as to not interrupt the general business of the site (which they did). However, it is difficult to assume good faith when you patently didn't bother to read my post where I mentioned this and also that I had no access to the aforementioned sites. Boo to you. Yay to the others who helped out. --sevendaughters 08:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sevendaughters (
talk •
contribs)
Since the event is taking place in Britain, it makes far more sense to use the time zone that the country is in at the moment, which is BST. –
PeeJay20:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)reply
POV issues with summary of Fourth Test
Is it just me or is the summary of the Fourth Test loaded with POV after the first day? Examples include (with bolding added by me to emphasise the offending parts):
"After lunch the onslaught continued"
"the Australian tail pounded the meager English attack"
"Clark also boomed 3 sixes" (this one not so much, but still...)
"Johnson came on producing classic left arm swing bowling"
"England in complete disarray"
"facing imminent defeat with the momentum of the series now flowing firmly in Australia's favour"
"Anderson poorly played at a short ball"
"Hilfenhaus later bowled a beautiful outswinger"
"took the catch magnificently"
"Their breathtaking eighth-wicket partnership"
"demolishing his stumps"
I'm not saying that these statements aren't correct, only that they need to be written in a far more encyclopaedic tone if this article is to be taken seriously. For the record, POV isn't about giving both sides of the discussion flowery language, but about giving it to neither and treating the subject with absolute neutrality. –
PeeJay06:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Agreed, written in a tabloid journalistic style. This is an encyclopedia, not a red top newspaper. It probably needs a complete rewrite. --
Mattinbgn\talk10:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I guess when you mean neutrality you want it to sound like England weren't as bad as they were. Also if you have a problem with the language its taken mostly from the BBC articles references.
Brudder Andrusha (
talk)
12:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Neutrality is telling the facts as they happened, not embellishing them to fit your own personal opinion of the subject. Like I said, the account isn't wrong, it's just far too flowery. And if the language was taken from the BBC's articles, then surely there's a copyright violation here? –
PeeJay12:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Given that I am Australian and a supporter of the Australian cricket team, I have little interest in making the England cricket team look good. Perhaps you might consider not being so personal in your responses. --
Mattinbgn\talk12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
What is "flowery"? The adjectives give a descriptive narrative of the account. As far as copyright violation - Check all the references if you accuse me of this.
Brudder Andrusha (
talk)
12:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
See
wikt:flowery, meaning No. 3. No one has accused you of anything, it was merely noted that copying sentences directly form other sites (as you have claim to have done from the BBC website) could be seen as an infringement of copyright. Secondly, as I said above, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper article, and as such should be written in an appropriate tone. The BBC can use different language than us here because thaey have a different audience and a different goal. Using excessive adjectives, or overly colourful ones is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. The article should not express the opinion of the writers (as the section in question does) but should simply report the facts. The section in question may be quite acceptable in a blog or a newspaper as a lively account of the days events but it is not appropriate here. I repeat, the section needs a complete rewrite to be acceptable. --
Mattinbgn\talk12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Because there is no obligation on me as a volunteer to do anything. Look, your contributions are welcome but in this case they are not appropriate for this article. --
Mattinbgn\talk12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
And I didn't describe the days' play because I was out during days 2 and 3. As you will note, I wrote the summary of Day 1, and without sounding arrogant, that summary is probably a good example you should follow. –
PeeJay17:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
IMO, its too bland and does not capture the human element of the game. Facts and statistics are for almanacs. BTW I didn't enter the 3rd day's play only the second day's play. I did add some of the information for the 3rd day which is referenced from a source. Also if references are to be used I find it not right to change the tone of what the original author intended and then cite it here.
Brudder Andrusha (
talk)
18:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
And here we have the root of the problem. As you have said, it is only your opinion that facts and figures are too "bland", but it is not up to you to determine the appropriate tone for the encyclopaedia. With good writing, it is very easy to capture the ebbs and flows of the game. If two batsmen stay in and build a big partnership, then you can write a bit more about that, whereas if three quick wickets fall then write about them in quick succession. The writing does not require extra embellishment. Furthermore, references are used to cite facts, not as a basis for the tone of the writing in the article. Just because the author of a news story has used a particular tone, does not – and normally should not – mean that we should use the same tone! –
PeeJay19:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Each to their own. As you said originally the facts with the adjectives were not wrong. The fact is also that destruction of the English team in three days cannot be just be sterilized. IMO, an encyclopaedic entry of this event in your style diminishes what took place. As to purrfect writing I'll leave that to someone else.
Brudder Andrusha (
talk)
20:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, I did have time to make a point of it here. What's your point? That my priorities should be with writing articles for ultimately no reward instead of actually living my life? Sure.... –
PeeJay07:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I have been attempting to create a seperate page for Australia's ODI against Scotland, on the basis that Scotland is an associate member of the ICC in its own right, and that as England's game against Ireland has a seperate page, so should this one. This has been repeatedly redirected on the grounds that "this is all part of the same tour". The basis for this is Cricinfo's list of the fixtures. However, Cricinfo list the tour as being to England and Scotland. As a consequence, if the Scotland game does not warrant its own page, then this article should be renamed as "Australian cricket team in England and Scotland in 2009".
Hammersfan 27/08/09, 16.37 BST
I'm starting to think that, perhaps, the Scotland v Australia ODI "series" should have its own article, similar to the
English cricket team in Ireland in 2009 article. Although the match is still part of Australia's tour of Great Britain, I'd prefer to think of it as a "tour within a tour". –
PeeJay15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I disagree, if we start to allow single matches to have articles then where do we stop, there's nearly 3,000 ODIs and 2,000 Tests so do you consider them all notable for stand-alone articles? We even have an article on a
single first-class match, there's been over 50,000 first-class matches in cricket history, same question are they all notable? We don't need articles for every single 'tour' and in fact many proper tours don't, and I've never heard any uproar about Wikipedia lack of coverage on England tour of South Africa in 2004/05 for example. If there was any sense here, the Ireland-England and Scotland-Australia ODIs would be redirected/merged with
International cricket in 2009. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Obviously not every Test, ODI and Twenty20 International is notable enough for its own article, but when a series involving two ICC members (albeit one as an associate member) includes just one match, surely it's fair enough for that series to have its own article. That is the reason why we have
English cricket team in Ireland in 2009 (also because that match wouldn't get covered anywhere else!) –
PeeJay00:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
It's not a series though is it; a series by definition is a group of matches. What is the scope of the England cricket team in Ireland article? It's one ODI, and I don't see what's notable about this ODI compared to 3,000 others, can somebody tell me why this ODI merits its own article? As I said above the International cricket in 2009 article is a perfectly good location for it to be covered, as it already is. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
08:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Surely any series involving two ODI-playing nations merits an article, whether the series involves one match or 100 matches? You can argue semantics about whether one match constitutes a series, but according to
Cricinfo and
Cricket Archive, it definitely is a series. –
PeeJay16:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
It's not semantics, it's simply English. I have taken a look at both those links but can't find any mention of these ODIs (England-Ireland, Scotland-Australia) being called a series. In fact when I look at that Cricinfo link I see the England-Ireland ODI is listed as 'England in Ireland ODI Match' when all previous entries under the One-Day Internationals heading (barring a multiple team tournament) contain the word series, therefore Cricinfo acknowledge the fact that one match cannot be considered a series. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
10:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Fine, but you've still failed to address the fact that England, Ireland, Australia and Scotland are ODI-playing nations, so an article about matches between those sides should be perfectly viable! –
PeeJay20:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Articles covering matches are fine, however an article covering a single match is different. I have notified
WT:CRIC of this discussion and suggest the conversation continues there as this matter doesn't directly relate to this article. --
Jpeeling (
talk)
20:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply