2005 Ashes series is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
What do you think about moving the article to: The 2005 Ashes? -- Commander Keane 06:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
All of the basic foundations for match summaries for the last three Tests have been completed. Simply plug in data and you're all set and ready to go...hope you don't mind.
I have noticed that match summaries are duplicated on this article and at a specific test match artcile (eg England v Australia 21-25 July 2005). Which one will be deleted eventually? -- Commander Keane 14:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Fellas the match is on in Manchester, I've plugged in the first stats for the test at Old Trafford so far onto the main page, and did a little cleanup work on the whole page as well. I hope you like it...Anonymous IP adress, batting out.
212.84.97.143 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well fellas it seems the English have the game in hand...so let's move on to the issue of test 4 at Trent Bridge. Perhaps may I suggest a regular updating schedule, rather than having everyone update after ever 10 or 15 overs...? J L C Leung
Erm, the article states baldly that the ball which dismissed Geraint Jones "kept low". No doubt this is his POV, however we should give some consideration to the possibility that he just misread the length and it was too quick for him. Perhaps it would be better to say "decisively bowled when he played a rapid Tait delivery as if it had kept low". -- DominicSayers 14:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I think having the match summaries on this article and individual pages hampers their development. I recommend having all the summaries on this page until the Ashes are over, and then move them to their own pages after that. In the mean time we can put a notcie on the individual pages like "Summaries are currenyly at The 2005 Ashes". Any objetions? -- Commander Keane 10:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the main section header for "Matches", since there are no longer two major sections to the page...it is just for a bit of a touchup to this page. -- J L C Leung 22:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
"whilst England at one point had sunk as low as 7th in the test team rankings ahead of only Bangladesh and Zimbabwe." -- there's 10 test teams so either the first or second parts are wrong-- josh 22:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Well gents and ladies, this has been a wonderful series. I will soon pull up the Current tag like Bowden and Koertzen did with the stumps after bad light. So what will happen to this page? Will there be any sort of way we can protect this page from further edits (unless necessary) so to prevent any overzealous fan from trying to "rewrite" history and undoing all of our fine work? -- J L C Leung 17:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The page is actually far too long, given that each match has its own page. -- Henrygb 01:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
This article should be brought in line with the naming conventions, which recommend against page names beginning with articles like "the". The main exception is for cases which need the "the" because it is part of a title, e.g. The Guardian is an article about the newspaper.
The Ashes, in my view, is OK. It's a borderline case (it's a title in a sense; but see America's Cup for a precedent going the other way); but in the end, what tips the balance in favor of including "the" is the need for ashes to be an everyday page, not a specialized one. (It's like The Telegraph, which is a newspaper, as opposed to telegraph, which is an invention.)
"The 2005 Ashes," on the other hand, isn't OK. So here are some alternatives:
(A note on this last one: by putting a functional adjective between "the" and "ashes" in the 2005 Ashes we are not treating "the ashes" as a title, since titles are untouchable. Hence the "the" doesn't belong. But by moving the "2005" to the end, we keep "the Ashes" together, which can be interpreted as a title — in which case the "the" can stay. This is not my preferred solution, however.) Doops | talk 19:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, there are a lot of name issues being discussed. Sticking to main question, I'd like to take a straw poll so I can figure out which name will have the most support for Wikipedia:requested moves. Please vote for your favorite option below. Doops | talk 00:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
The 2005 Ashes (no change)
2:
2005 Ashes
5: None of the above (please specify alternate suggestion)
OK, this is a workable consensus. I'm listing this page on
Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Doops |
talk 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't most of the references to 'English' and 'Australian' actually be to 'England' and 'Australia'? You would say "the England cricket team", not "the English cricket team" and "the England coach" not "the English coach", and the "the England bowlers" not "the English bowlers". There are many examples of this throughout the article. I would change them, but there are a lot of changes to make, so I thought I'd check here first. Carcharoth 02:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
English is more natural and better except where it would cause confusion. CSMR 05:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
"Australia were perhaps rather braggardly indicating that a 5-0 win in the series was a serious possibility."
McGrath suggested this; I am not sure that anyone else did.
Hayden had his moments, too: "I'm not trying to be arrogant when I say this, but I don't really care about them. We know that if we are playing to the best of our ability then England will not come close to us." Jonathan
Please see the "name, revisited" § above for discussion on the new name. Doops | talk 17:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Page moved per request. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I could take some screencaps from the Ashes DVD. I don't entirely understand the fair-use rules, but I believe this would be OK? HornetMike 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Not wishing to create any Anglo-Australian tension here but I think the assertation that Billy Bowden's decision to give Kasprowicz out was 'incorrect' is a little misleading. It's harsh on Bowden - it looked out to me and I'm sure it did to everyone watching - and TV replays have been inconclusive. Ericatom 00:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the first time I have ever heard anyone refer to this series as "Gilo's Ashes". I think the statement referring to this series as such should be removed. If anything, the series will be remembered as "Freddie's Ashes". Robruss24 10:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as a matter of interest, if Australia win the Ashes in 2006/2007 (and we will) should our team also receive MBEs and OBEs as the English team did (She's our Queen, too)? Are they going to make a practice of it? And were they only given to the English team anyway as an overreaction to an undoubtably excited England? Apterygial 05:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
On a topic related to the main article, can anyone change the thing that says Michael Clarke (cricketer), to just Michael Clarke? Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article is not ready for GA status at this time. Referencing is a major problem. Entire sections lack references, and many quotations (including those from world leaders such as Tony Blair) lack sources. Aside from the referencing, a few other problems come to mind:
This article needs quite a bit of work before it is ready, so I am going to fail it. I believe that it needs copyediting and thorough referencing before it is renominated. Having someone from outside of the cricket wikiproject look over it would also be a good idea, as I don't believe that this article is accessible to many readers without a thorough knowledge of the sport. The League of Copyeditors might be your best bet. I also see that the last peer review was in 2005, so a new one might help identify some issues that should be addressed. Please get in touch if you have any questions about this review. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the note that suggests that Michael Kasprowicz was not out since it hit his hand for two reasons. First, because there is contrary evidence from other sources which interpret the wicket was justified. Second, because if you set this precedent then we can go through all dismissals - all of which are vital, when considered carefully - and interrogate their plausability, using different interpretations as evidence. Here, it sounds like the editor was unhappy with the result, a condition which the umpire is more or less immune to. Third, such ambiguity did not represent the spirit of the game, nor its commentary - it was felt a fair decision, as I remember -- 81.155.117.79 ( talk) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Phil
There are a number of references in this article to comments (mostly opinions, not facts) made by Cricinfo commentators. Why are their opinions considered relevant? If they are, then shouldn't we also be referencing comments made by TV commentators on Sky? Or the BBC.com commentators? I can only understand referencing cricinfo for statistical data.
Examples of comments in the main body are:
Harmison, coming back for a second spell, was wicketless in his first two overs but after drinks he took 2.2–0–7–4 as Australia were all out for 190. He finished with five for 43, and was commended for his control of length by Cricinfo journalists S Rajesh and Arun Gopalakrishnan.
They started positively, riding their luck and good favour with the umpires; Aleem Dar turned down four leg before wicket (LBW) appeals off Shane Warne, though the Cricinfo commentator only claimed that one of them should have been given.
Australia had to field Michael Kasprowicz as replacement, and Cricinfo correspondent Will Luke claimed that "Australia ha[d] missed him" after the first day's play.
The quick scoring and the first Test result led commentators such as Cricinfo's UK editor Andrew Miller to believe that England's total "might have been 550 and more with a bit of top-order application".
UnwedUnfed ( talk) 19:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)UnwedUnfed
I recommend the following changes to the above-mentioned sections:
Harmison, coming back for a second spell, was wicketless in his first two overs but after drinks he took 2.2–0–7–4 as Australia were all out for 190. He finished with five for 43. Comment - control of length was only one of the factors that went into his spell (including line, pace and bounce). As such, it seems pointless to specifically include that point.
They started positively, riding some favorable umpiring decisions; Aleem Dar turned down four strong leg before wicket (LBW) appeals off Shane Warne. Comment - the cricinfo commentator's opinion of the decisions is completely irrelevant.
Australia had to field Michael Kasprowicz as replacement, and missed McGrath's superior control and wicket-taking abilities in the match. Comment - this was an opinion held by almost everyone (not just Will Luke), so I think the opinion should stay, but the reference should be removed.
England's total could have been significantly higher with a bit more top-order application, especially given the high scoring rate. Comment - Again, everyone agreed it could have been higher, but not everyone agreed it could have been "550". So the opinion stays, but the quote goes.
If no one has any issues with these changes, I will make the updates.
UnwedUnfed ( talk) 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC) UnwedUnfed
I added Flintoff's comment (as recounted by Lee) and it got reverted. This is well-sourced as part of the "story" of the end of the Edgbaston test, and Wikipedia really should include this amusing detail. Thoughts? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
( [3]) -- Dweller ( talk) 20:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Smashing stuff about the second Test here: [4] -- Dweller ( talk) 12:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2005 Ashes series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2005 Ashes series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
2005 Ashes series is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
What do you think about moving the article to: The 2005 Ashes? -- Commander Keane 06:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
All of the basic foundations for match summaries for the last three Tests have been completed. Simply plug in data and you're all set and ready to go...hope you don't mind.
I have noticed that match summaries are duplicated on this article and at a specific test match artcile (eg England v Australia 21-25 July 2005). Which one will be deleted eventually? -- Commander Keane 14:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Fellas the match is on in Manchester, I've plugged in the first stats for the test at Old Trafford so far onto the main page, and did a little cleanup work on the whole page as well. I hope you like it...Anonymous IP adress, batting out.
212.84.97.143 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well fellas it seems the English have the game in hand...so let's move on to the issue of test 4 at Trent Bridge. Perhaps may I suggest a regular updating schedule, rather than having everyone update after ever 10 or 15 overs...? J L C Leung
Erm, the article states baldly that the ball which dismissed Geraint Jones "kept low". No doubt this is his POV, however we should give some consideration to the possibility that he just misread the length and it was too quick for him. Perhaps it would be better to say "decisively bowled when he played a rapid Tait delivery as if it had kept low". -- DominicSayers 14:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I think having the match summaries on this article and individual pages hampers their development. I recommend having all the summaries on this page until the Ashes are over, and then move them to their own pages after that. In the mean time we can put a notcie on the individual pages like "Summaries are currenyly at The 2005 Ashes". Any objetions? -- Commander Keane 10:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the main section header for "Matches", since there are no longer two major sections to the page...it is just for a bit of a touchup to this page. -- J L C Leung 22:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
"whilst England at one point had sunk as low as 7th in the test team rankings ahead of only Bangladesh and Zimbabwe." -- there's 10 test teams so either the first or second parts are wrong-- josh 22:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Well gents and ladies, this has been a wonderful series. I will soon pull up the Current tag like Bowden and Koertzen did with the stumps after bad light. So what will happen to this page? Will there be any sort of way we can protect this page from further edits (unless necessary) so to prevent any overzealous fan from trying to "rewrite" history and undoing all of our fine work? -- J L C Leung 17:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The page is actually far too long, given that each match has its own page. -- Henrygb 01:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
This article should be brought in line with the naming conventions, which recommend against page names beginning with articles like "the". The main exception is for cases which need the "the" because it is part of a title, e.g. The Guardian is an article about the newspaper.
The Ashes, in my view, is OK. It's a borderline case (it's a title in a sense; but see America's Cup for a precedent going the other way); but in the end, what tips the balance in favor of including "the" is the need for ashes to be an everyday page, not a specialized one. (It's like The Telegraph, which is a newspaper, as opposed to telegraph, which is an invention.)
"The 2005 Ashes," on the other hand, isn't OK. So here are some alternatives:
(A note on this last one: by putting a functional adjective between "the" and "ashes" in the 2005 Ashes we are not treating "the ashes" as a title, since titles are untouchable. Hence the "the" doesn't belong. But by moving the "2005" to the end, we keep "the Ashes" together, which can be interpreted as a title — in which case the "the" can stay. This is not my preferred solution, however.) Doops | talk 19:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, there are a lot of name issues being discussed. Sticking to main question, I'd like to take a straw poll so I can figure out which name will have the most support for Wikipedia:requested moves. Please vote for your favorite option below. Doops | talk 00:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
The 2005 Ashes (no change)
2:
2005 Ashes
5: None of the above (please specify alternate suggestion)
OK, this is a workable consensus. I'm listing this page on
Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Doops |
talk 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't most of the references to 'English' and 'Australian' actually be to 'England' and 'Australia'? You would say "the England cricket team", not "the English cricket team" and "the England coach" not "the English coach", and the "the England bowlers" not "the English bowlers". There are many examples of this throughout the article. I would change them, but there are a lot of changes to make, so I thought I'd check here first. Carcharoth 02:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
English is more natural and better except where it would cause confusion. CSMR 05:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
"Australia were perhaps rather braggardly indicating that a 5-0 win in the series was a serious possibility."
McGrath suggested this; I am not sure that anyone else did.
Hayden had his moments, too: "I'm not trying to be arrogant when I say this, but I don't really care about them. We know that if we are playing to the best of our ability then England will not come close to us." Jonathan
Please see the "name, revisited" § above for discussion on the new name. Doops | talk 17:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Page moved per request. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I could take some screencaps from the Ashes DVD. I don't entirely understand the fair-use rules, but I believe this would be OK? HornetMike 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Not wishing to create any Anglo-Australian tension here but I think the assertation that Billy Bowden's decision to give Kasprowicz out was 'incorrect' is a little misleading. It's harsh on Bowden - it looked out to me and I'm sure it did to everyone watching - and TV replays have been inconclusive. Ericatom 00:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the first time I have ever heard anyone refer to this series as "Gilo's Ashes". I think the statement referring to this series as such should be removed. If anything, the series will be remembered as "Freddie's Ashes". Robruss24 10:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as a matter of interest, if Australia win the Ashes in 2006/2007 (and we will) should our team also receive MBEs and OBEs as the English team did (She's our Queen, too)? Are they going to make a practice of it? And were they only given to the English team anyway as an overreaction to an undoubtably excited England? Apterygial 05:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
On a topic related to the main article, can anyone change the thing that says Michael Clarke (cricketer), to just Michael Clarke? Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article is not ready for GA status at this time. Referencing is a major problem. Entire sections lack references, and many quotations (including those from world leaders such as Tony Blair) lack sources. Aside from the referencing, a few other problems come to mind:
This article needs quite a bit of work before it is ready, so I am going to fail it. I believe that it needs copyediting and thorough referencing before it is renominated. Having someone from outside of the cricket wikiproject look over it would also be a good idea, as I don't believe that this article is accessible to many readers without a thorough knowledge of the sport. The League of Copyeditors might be your best bet. I also see that the last peer review was in 2005, so a new one might help identify some issues that should be addressed. Please get in touch if you have any questions about this review. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the note that suggests that Michael Kasprowicz was not out since it hit his hand for two reasons. First, because there is contrary evidence from other sources which interpret the wicket was justified. Second, because if you set this precedent then we can go through all dismissals - all of which are vital, when considered carefully - and interrogate their plausability, using different interpretations as evidence. Here, it sounds like the editor was unhappy with the result, a condition which the umpire is more or less immune to. Third, such ambiguity did not represent the spirit of the game, nor its commentary - it was felt a fair decision, as I remember -- 81.155.117.79 ( talk) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Phil
There are a number of references in this article to comments (mostly opinions, not facts) made by Cricinfo commentators. Why are their opinions considered relevant? If they are, then shouldn't we also be referencing comments made by TV commentators on Sky? Or the BBC.com commentators? I can only understand referencing cricinfo for statistical data.
Examples of comments in the main body are:
Harmison, coming back for a second spell, was wicketless in his first two overs but after drinks he took 2.2–0–7–4 as Australia were all out for 190. He finished with five for 43, and was commended for his control of length by Cricinfo journalists S Rajesh and Arun Gopalakrishnan.
They started positively, riding their luck and good favour with the umpires; Aleem Dar turned down four leg before wicket (LBW) appeals off Shane Warne, though the Cricinfo commentator only claimed that one of them should have been given.
Australia had to field Michael Kasprowicz as replacement, and Cricinfo correspondent Will Luke claimed that "Australia ha[d] missed him" after the first day's play.
The quick scoring and the first Test result led commentators such as Cricinfo's UK editor Andrew Miller to believe that England's total "might have been 550 and more with a bit of top-order application".
UnwedUnfed ( talk) 19:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)UnwedUnfed
I recommend the following changes to the above-mentioned sections:
Harmison, coming back for a second spell, was wicketless in his first two overs but after drinks he took 2.2–0–7–4 as Australia were all out for 190. He finished with five for 43. Comment - control of length was only one of the factors that went into his spell (including line, pace and bounce). As such, it seems pointless to specifically include that point.
They started positively, riding some favorable umpiring decisions; Aleem Dar turned down four strong leg before wicket (LBW) appeals off Shane Warne. Comment - the cricinfo commentator's opinion of the decisions is completely irrelevant.
Australia had to field Michael Kasprowicz as replacement, and missed McGrath's superior control and wicket-taking abilities in the match. Comment - this was an opinion held by almost everyone (not just Will Luke), so I think the opinion should stay, but the reference should be removed.
England's total could have been significantly higher with a bit more top-order application, especially given the high scoring rate. Comment - Again, everyone agreed it could have been higher, but not everyone agreed it could have been "550". So the opinion stays, but the quote goes.
If no one has any issues with these changes, I will make the updates.
UnwedUnfed ( talk) 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC) UnwedUnfed
I added Flintoff's comment (as recounted by Lee) and it got reverted. This is well-sourced as part of the "story" of the end of the Edgbaston test, and Wikipedia really should include this amusing detail. Thoughts? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
( [3]) -- Dweller ( talk) 20:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Smashing stuff about the second Test here: [4] -- Dweller ( talk) 12:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2005 Ashes series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2005 Ashes series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)