Talk:English cricket team in India in 2016–17

Notable occurrences - 1st Tests

I don't object to First Test at a venue being listed as a notable occurrence, and there seems to be a revert war every time someone adds it (I'd say it is as notable as a player making a debut). Vote? Spike 'em (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm reverting it on principle of there being no sources added by the user who insists on adding it. The WP:BURDEN is with them to source it! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough! Spike 'em (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it sounds petty, but I see this sort of thing creeping in all the time (esp. on these type of articles). There's a core group of editors who think it's OK to dump any stat in, hoping someone else will go and find a source for it. But I agree it's notable. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This Bilateral Cricket series should have map.

There are many bilateral cricket series on wiki which have maps, which are long series having multiple International mtcs. like 2006–07 Ashes series, 2010–11 Ashes series.

This series is played across India with M. A. Chidambaram Stadium, Chepauk, Chennai hosting a test match after a gap of three years.

Rajkot

Visakhapatnam

Mohali

Mumbai

Chennai

Pune

Cuttack

Kolkata

Kanpur

Nagpur

Bangalore

class=notpageimage|

Location of the India- England matches: Tests(green), ODIs(red) and T20Is (orange). Venues (city/town, if different than name)

--Nihoyari (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

References

So what? What benefit does this bring here? For every series you show with a map, I can find 20 that don't use one. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I agree with Lugnuts that we don't need it. If people want to know where the places are, they can just use a map. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with the map being included, and "If people want to know where the places are, they can just use a map" is a terrible argument. If the information is pertinent to the article then you should include it, not leave it to the reader to hunt elsewhere. Spike 'em (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A large map with 11 dots in it is not pertinent to the article. Just like most series articles, this one is fine without the pointless map. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The map is needed, because it is no less that a mini-tournament. All 3 formats of International cricket are played in more number in this series. Second time, India is playing 3 T20Is in a home series, only after India -Srilanka T20I series in Februar 2015. India last hosted a five-Test series in 1986–87 against Pakistan. The map can be included in the right side of a section, instead of center.--Nihoyari (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I think, the map should be used as its as important series as Ashes. also, some venues have been given test status.--Huzoorbaba (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Another WP:SPA from the sub-continent chipping in. There's a surprise. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I really don't see how a map would improve this article. The geographical locations of the matches are irrelevant to the cricket being played. The only benefit I could see is if people were saying that long travel times between matches were causing the players to struggle, but no one is saying that. – PeeJay 10:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be included. It shows where all these places are in relation to each other - without which you wouldn't know if they were all in the north; in the east; or in the south. Time was that England had no Test grounds south of Kennington Oval; west of Old Trafford; or north of Headingley. Remember that until 1970, all Australian Test cricket was held in the south-east of that country. If you're not familiar with the geography of India, a map - even a pushpin map like this - is a great help. I'm English, and I know of the approximate locations of a few of the largest cities - Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai. My girlfriend is Punjabi, and even she doesn't know where Mohali is. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

But like I said, what difference does it make where these places are? All you need to know in relation to this article is that they're in India. Anything else can be read on those cities' own articles. – PeeJay 00:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Those cities' own articles show where they are in India; but not in relation to one another. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

But what relevance does that hold? Why would anyone need to know that? – PeeJay 09:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It's relevant to this series, to know whereabouts Rajkot is in realtion to Visakhapatnam, Mohali, Mumbai and so on. Why are you denying knowledge from people? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

"denying knowledge from people" Haha. Based on that flawed logic, then for the benefit of your girlfriend, the article of Mohali should have a map that shows the capital city of India on it too, and vice-versa. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not relevant to this discussion (see WP:OTHERCONTENT), which is about whether the article English cricket team in India in 2016–17 should have a pushpin map or not. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is relevant, as it's the same example with the same rationale. Oh, nice essay too. Which isn't relevant either. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Main article: Anthony De Mello Trophy

I'm taking out the Main article reference. This article already mentions that the test series was played for the Anthony De Mello Trophy (and links to the Anthony De Mello Trophy article), but the Anthony De Mello Trophy article is not the main article for this series. It doesn't even mention it yet. --Frans Fowler (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Anthony De Mello Trophy has one line about this series. Although I agree, it's not the main article about it, and no need for a see also, as we link to Anthony De Mello Trophy anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Match ordering

Is it convention that Tour matches come before everything else? As they only relate to the Limited-over section of the tour I'd put them in the middle of the article, as it seems strange to not have the different sections in chronological order. I can see that if there was a mix of tour games including some before the Tests that it would make sense to have them there (to keep them in one place). Spike 'em (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, usually they go first, as often there's something before the full international matches take place. But in this case, it doesn't make much sense. I'll move them. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This edit was made with a comment of "tour matches should either be at the beginning or end; my preference is for the end since they're less important than the actual Tests/ODIs/T20Is", which I think is relevant as part of this discussion. Spike 'em (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

When I had seen this article after first tour match, I thought no one add the tour matches. Its add after the matches, its not good for reading and understanding. We all were known that order of matches like Test, ODI,T20 as well as Tour also. 42.109.195.27 (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying the sections should be added in chronological order or in order of priority? Because sometimes the tour matches are all of different varieties (three-day, two-day, 50-over, 20-over), so it can be a bit confusing to put them all together in the middle (assuming the tour matches don't start until the middle of the tour). Personally, I think tour matches should always come last, since they're of far lower priority than the rest of the games, and then the Test, ODI and T20I sections should be put in chronological order. – PeeJay 12:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Pee Jay, I asked tour matches should placed at before the matches. Main matches should followed the tour matches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.109.129.175 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Why? They're not important, and they don't always come first chronologically. – PeeJay 17:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, why are we not placing the tour matches as per the dates on which the matches actually took place, that is after the test series and before ODI series.srini (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It would make sense (esp. to the non-cricket reader) to have the limited-over tour matches placed after the Test matches and before the ODI series. If there were tour matches before the full international fixtures, then they would normally be placed in that section. I guess you'd have to ask yourself what comments would crop up if this was ever to get promoted to a Good Article or Featured Article (unlikely, I know). Like most things on WP, this ultimately doesn't matter, but it would be nice to get something agreed upon and written down for the manual of style of these things. Anyone fancy doing a long drawn-out RfC (at the expense of the tax-payer) to agree this once and for all? Probably not. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Excuse my French, but 90% of the things you say bounce of my head. But, I believe Wikipedia is for all readers and not only cricket readers. I agree that there should be a manual of style and it should be followed. Wikipedia gives importance to the fact which are notable and not statistical. The first tour match was made popular and is notable as it was the MS Dhoni's last match as captain.srini (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No-one is saying not to include the matches, but the tour matches are nowhere near as significant as the Tests, ODIs or T20Is and it makes no sense to have them at the top of the article. Spike 'em (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Other than statistics, How is a match with match than 20,000 spectators and Television broadcast over 8 nations in different languages any less significant than Tests, ODIs or T20Is.--srini (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn--srini (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Squads

In the Test squads, for both teams, Few player's names (Ajinkya Rahane, Gautam Gambhir, Wriddhiman Saha, Mohammed Shami, Zafar Ansari and Haseeb Hameed) are striked out. But these players were a part of playing XI for at least one match and were later ruled out due to injury or went on vacation. So, is it appropriate to strike out their name (courtesy to the "Wikipedia manual of style"), Because it gives an impression the they didn't played at all.--srini (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

That is usually done when a player is in the squad but is then ruled out through major injury. It doesn't happen should a player just get dropped due to bad form, or if they have a minor injury. Spike 'em (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think if the player is named in the initial squad and then ruled out due to injury before a match is played, then they should be struck out. However, if the player is injured after participating in the tour (i.e. in a game, not just in nets), then they should not be struck out and we should note their withdrawal with some kind of footnote. – PeeJay 13:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I like the sound of that. Spike 'em (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Umpiring errors

In my view, these are not notable. Spike 'em (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In my view they were notable enough, specifically that one that got Root out in the final over what possibly directly cost England a win. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Umpires make mistakes, people kick up a fuss, and everyone forgets about it in a few days. No long standing longevity of notability of umpiring mistakes. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, totally not worth mentioning. Maybe Ptok-Bentoniczny could form a coherent rationale as to why they should be added, instead of going back to the personal attacks. Again. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

And you're crying again over "personal attacks". Apparently, you consider any message to you as "personal attacks". That's rather weak, sad and pathetic. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Saying my edit to remove that text was "vandalism" is a clear personal attack, and you continue with the attacks in your reply here. Also the consensus is clearly against you to include the note about umpire mistakes. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)