Talk:English cricket team against Pakistan in the UAE in 2009–10

Using initials

The convention on these scorecards is to use initials, see recent pages: South African cricket team in India in 2009–10, Bangladeshi cricket team in New Zealand in 2009–10, English cricket team in South Africa in 2009–10. And the template page: Template:Limited Overs Matches/doc. Harrias (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I was born yesterday? All those articles were edited by PeeJay to have that format and the template page has just been changed to suit his preference. There's absolutely no consensus to use this format so you have no reason to revert my edits. --88.109.169.136 (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, although PeeJay did clean up each of those articles, all of them were already formatted with initials, made by various other editors including myself. That would suggest a consensus to me. Harrias (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

[1]? Stop talking before you embarass yourself further. --88.109.169.136 (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would care to check this discussion, you will see that there was nothing wrong with my edits to the template documentation page, this page, or any other page. – PeeJay 13:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What a bizarre conclusion you draw from that 'discussion'. I don't care if you have your own style preference but don't try forcing that onto the whole community as the accepted standard. --88.109.169.136 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion, my edits to Template:Limited Overs Matches/doc simply reflect usage that has been around for years. No other editors seem to have a problem with it, just you and your IP cohorts. – PeeJay 14:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not been the usage for years though, if you take a look at the numerous articles you haven't edited you'd see that the majority use full names rather than initials and none what so ever use square brackets for overs. I repeat again that this is your personal preference to how the template should be used and shouldn't be forced as the accepted standard. I imagine no other editors realised you had changed the documentation so you can hardly use that as a defence. --88.109.133.47 (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that User:MDCollins recognised my edits as merely reflecting common usage of {{Limited Overs Matches}}. Like he says, you don't have to follow those usage guidelines, but it makes the encyclopaedia look more professional if you do. Furthermore, you will also notice that it has been the accepted practice for official cricket statisticians and scorers to use initials for more than a century. Just take a look at Cricinfo or CricketArchive, two of the biggest cricket stats sites on the internet, both of which use initials. Finally, if you look at the template's previous usage guidelines, you will notice that it was a horrible mish-mash of styles, as Ryan ten Doeschate was referred to as "R ten Doeschate", while the rest of the players were referred to using full names. – PeeJay 18:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Initials are used for scorecards to save space, whereas we have space and these aren't scorecards. If you see DS Smith playing for the West Indies, do you really know whether it's Devon or Dwayne? Some people may do but the vast majority wouldn't so it's much more helpful to readers for you to write the name in full. --88.109.132.169 (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is why we have the ability to pipe links. DS Smith links to Devon Smith and DR Smith links to Dwayne Smith. It's not a difficult concept. – PeeJay 20:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And why should a reader have to click a link when it's so easy to display the full name in the first place? --88.109.128.63 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(reindent) Would the IP user (sorry I don't have anything better to call you by!) consent to abide by a consensus if we have a debate on WP:CRIC? I must admit, despite my revision of your edits, I do agree with using full names, for the reason you listed, and for the possibility of confusion over such as IJL Trott etc. If a consensus is reached there for initials would you accept it, or keep trying to change? And similarly, PeeJay, would you? Harrias (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Apart from the fact that I agree with the current style, the only reason I use it is because it was the most prevalent in the articles I looked at when I first started editing cricket articles. – PeeJay 20:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A discussion at WP:CRIC should have taken place before PeeJay decided to change the template. I still find it astonishing that one man could be so big headed to think his preferred style automatically overides a long term consensus. Remember to include the bizarre square brackets for overs in this discussion. --88.109.128.63 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I still maintain that this style is the predominant style for most cricket articles on this site, which is why I changed it. Out of the 10 articles about international cricket tours in Category:2010 in cricket, at least 7 of them used this style before I made my first edit to any of them. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)