Template talk:Single-innings cricket match

Syntax

There are two sets of variables. The older one is (pending discussion) to be phased out, in favour of the newer smaller one.

Older variables:

{{Limited overs international |
batting first flag = |
batting first = |
score first innings = |
overs first innings = |
batting first highest scorer = |
batting first highest scorer initial form = |
batting first highest score = |
batting first highest score balls faced = |
bowling first best bowler = |
bowling first best bowler initial form = |
bowling first best figures = |
batting second flag = |
batting second = |
score second innings = |
overs second innings = |
batting second highest scorer = |
batting second highest scorer initial form = |
batting second highest score = |
batting second highest score balls faced = |
bowling second best bowler = |
bowling second best bowler initial form = |
bowling second best figures = |
winning team = |
win margin = |
stadium = |
city = |
country = |
umpire1 =  |
umpire1 initial form = |
umpire1 country = |
umpire1 country short form = |
umpire2 = |
umpire2 initial form = |
umpire2 country = |
umpire2 country short form = |
MOTM = |
MOTM initial form = |
MOTM country = |
MOTM ctry short form = |
}}

Example:

	v

New variables:

{{Limited Overs Matches
 | date = 
 | team1 = 
 | score1 = 
 | score2 = 
 | team2 = 
 | runs1 = 
 | wickets1 = 
 | runs2 = 
 | wickets2 = 
 | result = 
 | report = 
 | venue = 
 | umpires = 
 | motm = 
 | rain = 
}}

Example:

March 16, 2007 (scorecard)

South Africa 353/3 (40 overs)	v	Netherlands 132/9 (40 overs)
Jacques Kallis 128* (109) Billy Stelling 1/43 (8 overs)		R ten Doeschate 57 (75) Justin Kemp 2/18 (4 overs)

South Africa won by 221 runs Warner Park Stadium, Basseterre, Saint Kitts and Nevis Umpires: Mark Benson and Tony Hill Player of the match: Herschelle Gibbs

• Match reduced to 40 overs a side because of rain/ground conditions.

Dacium 06:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

See also {{First Class Matches}}-- ALoan (Talk) 11:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Toss

I think this needs a toss field as especially in day/night games this can be very important. Flagging day/night games is another question though :) --Bedders 11:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the trouble is going through 40-50 pages and replacing them with toss information. I think they should be substituted anyway, though, the template is very badly formatted and puts too many constraints on people. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are problems with the template then that should result in the template being modified - not being subst'ed - that defeats the point of having the template and prevents the consistent look and feel. -- Chuq 03:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to full Scorecard

Also how about a link to the full scorecard on (probably) cricinfo? --Bedders 11:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mildly late reply again: Best way to do it is as a reference in win margin, thus: "win margin = 50 runs |" Sam Vimes | Address me 21:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Template Issue: Tied Matches

Slight problem with this template as it stands. When a match is tied, there is no field to show this. Attempting to put it in the "winnin team" field results in: "Match Tied won by Match Tied"; if it is left blank then the template throws up an arrow and simply displays {{{venue}}}. Anyone know a way around this? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_cricket_World_Cup#Semi-finals for an example of where this is occurring, the 2nd Semi-Final between South Africa and Australia.

Cheers. AllynJ 17:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Use "result = Match tied". (this has the unfortunate consequence that "venue", "umpires" and "motm" fields are thrown in.)

Really, winning team and win margin shouldn't be used. Too inflexible. Sam Vimes | Address me 17:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't really mix and match the variables from the first type to the second. Unfortuently when the template was originally created they did not think about tied matches. The best I think can be done is to go winning team = "Neither team", winning margin = "anything. Match Tied" to get "Neither team won by anything. Match tied." Having said that it isn't that big a deal to change every use of the template, because you can see all the uses here, their really aren't that many: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Limited_overs_international--Dacium 22:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Which form should be eventually used?

With the merger of the former Template:Cricketbox into this one whilst its format was carried over into here, a discussion should be raised into which set of paramaters should be used. Personally I'd eventually go with the simplicity of the second one since it would be less strenuous for editors when editing a page, but I guess this is open for all suggestions. It does say at the top of this page that the top version should eventually be used, so please leave your thoughts here. Cheers, --mdmanser 05:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the second one is far better. The first one goes over the top with to many variables and is to specific such that it causes problems. The big one has no way to include D/L details and has problem with tied matches. The small one has the (report) thing instead of having to squeeze in a reference. The only thing the first one does good is that it forces users to use the same format (in terms of players names, umpires names, initials, country etc).--Dacium 21:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree here, having added in a large amount of these over the past few days I can say that the second is more concise, easier to read, as well as being better designed and implemented. Personally I would propose moving over the second form for *everything* as soon as possible - and if this would be supported by WP:Cricket I'd be happy to help out in moving some of the older templates over to the newer one. AllynJ 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Same amount of runs

What is better: 22 from 50 balls not out or 22 from 21 balls out? Guy0307 03:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually number of balls is ignored. So 22 not out beats 22, regardless of the number of balls. It is not so much meant to put the best batsmen, rather the higher score, with not out being considered higher than out. This is the same with bowlers, most wickets wins reguardless, so 3/100 in 10 overs would still be 2/4 from 10 overs as the 'top' bowling. Also 2/4 from 1 over would still beat 2/6 from 10 overs etc as conseeded less runs, balls are ignored and only used if all else is equal. If this is also equal then person who achieved the score first is awarded it (example two batsmen 50 from 40, the earlier batsmen is listed)--Dacium 10:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Template for IPL matches and previous discussion

I have created a new template for use in 2008 Indian Premier League and in subsequent seasons and have implemented it there. It is currently in use on that page. It was designed to be in use with the template for Limited Overs Matches (not to alter this template). The template was to be used by inserting some code into the values for the 3 fields in this template marked "team1", "team2" and "result", instead of listing the relevant team names in these fields. The result of this was the following:

1) Next to each team there would be a "team colour icon" containing the colour(s) of the team in question, similar to how flags are used for national team score summaries.

2) Instead of always having the home team listed in the first column, this column would always contain the team batting first.

3) To compensate for the loss of information about which team is the home team, a "(H)" symbol would appear next to the home team's name in every match.

However, there has been some resistance to these changes, as well as the suggestion that the discussion of this new template belongs on this discussion page. As such I have copied all of the discussion so far to this page in the form of the following 2 sections, so that the discussion can continue here. Juwe (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

New template for results section (Note: this discussion originated in Talk:2008 Indian Premier League)

I have created a new template for use in the results section after each match has finished. There were essentially 3 modifications I made to the old format and here they are: 1) I have added flags of the one or two colours of each team 2) I have made sure that the team that bats first is always the team listed in the first column (or "team 1"). I know that this means that the home team is no longer always in the first column, but this issue is dealt with in point 3. 3) I have put a "(H)" next to each home team.

The reasons for the last 2 points are as follows: It is not always possible to tell which team batted first merely from looking at the summary of scores as it stood, with the home team always listed first (eg in a tied game or last ball win by the chasing team). Futher, even if you can determine this by carefully examining the summary for things like runs scored by both teams, number of overs used by each team and whether each team were bowled out or not, this is a laborious process. You should be able to scan the top row of a match summary and instantly see:

1) Which teams were playing

2) Which team batted first

3) Who won and by how much

4) Which team was the home team

The new format achieves all of these aims, unlike the old format.

How to apply the template:

The template is located here Template:Cr-IPL or more relevantly in the "edit this page section" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cr-IPL&action=edit.

To fill in the scoresheet for an IPL game, I will demonstrate with an example. If we take an example game between the Deccan Chargers and the Mumbai Indians where Deccan bats first, the value for "team1" should either be {{Cr-IPL|decc|L}} (if Deccan is the away team) OR {{Cr-IPL|decc-h|L}} (if Deccan is the home team). Similarly "team2" should be either {{Cr-IPL|mumb-h|R}} OR {{Cr-IPL|mumb|R}}. If Deccan wins the game by 26 runs, the value for "result" should be "{{Cr-IPL|decc-r}} won by 26 runs." (with the r standing for result). Juwe (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly dispute all three modifications made.

1) I can't see the reason why a team's uniform color can be considered its "flag". It's highly inappropriate, out of place and perhaps even borders on Original Research.

2) The argument that the score should be indicative of who batted first is highly irrelevant. Plus these matters come under WP:Cricket. There are number of wikipedia articles noting match scores which strictly follow the rules in which the fixtures are declared. If you intend to contest that, I'd suggest you do so on the project talk page.

Please explain your stand on these issues or I'd suggest we remove all three modifications made here. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll start with the "flag" argument. Firstly, I have used the term "flag" loosely. I don't care whether it is called a "flag" or something else. Maybe a better description would be "Team colour icon". I have merely used the colour(s) of the teams as found in the wikipedia articles about individual IPL teams, eg Rajasthan Royals, so it clearly isn't original research. Using such visual identifiers is not unique, eg 2007-08 KFC Twenty20 Big Bash, and it improves the appearance of the page by catching the eye with a quick scan. Sports like rugby league even have a template for such icons called "leagueicon", see Template:Leagueicon. Maybe someone could create a similar template for cricket, but until then the IPL must make do with my clunky attempt.

Now for the point about the order of the teams. You have linked me to WP:Cricket, yet nothing in that page suggests that score summaries should remain in the format which doesn't show which team batted first. As I have already explained, the problem of seeing which team is the home team has also been solved in the new format with the addition of the "(H)" symbol. As for the claim that knowing which side batted first is "irrelevant", I hardly know where to begin with refuting that argument. Aside from the arguments I have already listed about the old format's deficiencies in this area, knowing which side batted first reveals much about the way the match developed. Obviously the first thing is the ability to see which team set the total and which team chased, the tactics of each varying greatly from the other. For example, if a team was chasing what it knew was a low total, a usually fast-scorer might bat at a relatively slow pace and consequently have a lower than usual strike rate. In addition, as every cricket-lover knows, the conditions of the pitch and the atmosphere may change over the course of the match, affecting the level of difficulty of batting. For example, as a match wears on, a pitch might get slower and lower and the air may become more humid, making batting more difficult for the side batting second. As such, knowing which side batted first is one of the MOST relevant pieces of information that a score summary might contain. At any rate, you have given no reasons why the old format has ANY advantages over the new format and reverting something MERELY BECAUSE it is an incremental change on the last model seems to defeat the goal of creating a better wikipedia.

Whoops, forgot to sign the above post Juwe (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the new format by Juwe.

1. I think the "Team colour icons" look good.
2. It seems obvious that it's better for the page to show both who is the home team and which team batted first. LeaveSleeves, could explain your objection in more detail?
3. Someone has edited back to home-team-first order. I will let them know they need to join the discussion here instead.

Andrew Moylan (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is no particular need for a "make do" system. Rather than the presentation, it is important that the system you are using is fully representative of the original entity. Secondly, it is no way relevant that the system used by a certain article should in any way taken as appropriate over here. Thirdly, the reason why I mentioned that the edits might "border" on original research is that there is no official or a reliable declaration (as perhaps is the case with your rugby league example) that these color sets represent the franchises as flags or any other symbols. A you said yourself, you have simply taken the uniform color information on each franchise article and used them in the template.

Also I'm sorry for redirecting you to WP:CRIC for the said discussion. It can instead be found on Template talk:Limited Overs Matches. You can join the discussion there, I see no reason to discuss this issue on this talk page. The method you mentioned would be in contradiction to all the articles that use the said template and against the general consensus.

Finally, I truly respect your intentions of improving the article. That's the reason why I'm discussing the changes (incremental or otherwise) here instead of simply reverting your edits. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi LeaveSleaves,

I agree with you that we shouldn't have "make do" systems. As you can see from my post here Template talk:Limited Overs Matches#Template for IPL matches and previous discussion, the template DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO REPLACE the template for score summaries for One Day Internationals. When used, it merely replaces the insertion of team names into the template at 3 places with the parts of code from my new template which are relevant to those teams. This is one of the reasons why I posted on the discussion page for the 2008 IPL rather than here. My template was intended to add to the body of such templates (e.g. the template for Australian domestic cricket teams Template:Cr-Aus), and in the near future be properly organised and linked so that it is easy to find for future use (and duplication for other cricket competitions around the world). Unfortunately I have only had time to make a template for the IPL, but that does not mean that it is a "make do" system. All it means is that templates for other competitions should be made in the near future. The IPL template itself was created largely by copying the aforementioned template for Australian domestic teams.

As far as the suggestion that the style of the IPL template had already been rejected here in favour of keeping the home team listed in the first column, I don't agree with you there. The main discussion on this page seems to have been about whether to use the old, unwieldy ODI template or the newer, more managable template. The consensus reached was that the newer, smaller template was to be used. The IPL template which I created is designed to be used IN CONJUNCTION WITH this new ODI template. It is by no means clear that anyone has decided that the home team must be listed first (instead of the team batting first) when an alternative method of indicating the home team is used. In fact, the only section of this page which had any relevance to the question was the section Template talk:Limited Overs Matches#Toss, where the only suggestions for or against including information on which team batted first seem to imply that this information should be included if possible. Maybe this information could be worked into the existing ODI template, but it appears that no-one (including myself) is willing and able to do this. However, this information IS included in the IPL template, whose use results in no more work in editing score summaries than if code from the template was not used, as shown in my example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Limited_Overs_Matches#New_template_for_results_section_.28Note:_this_discussion_originated_in_Talk:2008_Indian_Premier_League.29.

Juwe (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinions seem to have been miscommunicated in earlier posts and I'll try and clarify them. My opposition to the changes in 2008 Indian Premier League was twofold. One was against the usage of Template:Cr-IPL in the said article. Second was contradiction of general consensus in usage of this template. It was in light of the second argument that I suggested you consider discussing your modifications on this talk page. However the first issue still pertains to the article 2008 Indian Premier League, and please be discussed there.

Since you have posted your answer to my earlier entry here, I'd reply here. My argument wasn't against creation of Template:Cr-IPL, but rather the usage of uniform colors as icons. The relevance and appropriateness of this relation is doubtful to me, as there is no particular use of those colors in this fashion by either the franchises or the organizers.

As for the usage of this template, all I'd say is that I agree with fixtures being written as they are declared by organizers. That's the way the consensus is. Changing it would require a renewed consensus, not to mention the change in all the present and future articles that do and would use this template. Plus quite a few articles give details of events in the match (consider 2007–08 Commonwealth Bank Series as an example) which in turn help understanding how it progressed.

I hope you'd understand the relevance of various discussions on their particular talk pages and follow it. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that colors based on the uniforms are great. The players wear colored uniforms. It's memorable. What colors or iconography would you suggest instead LeaveSleaves? Andrew Moylan (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi LeaveSleaves,

Firstly a brief note about the relevance of the discussions on particular talk pages. I started the discussion about the Template:Cr-IPL template on the discussion page of the 2008 Indian Premier League page with no discussion on this talk page. This is because I considered it, and still consider it, only relevant to the 2008 IPL page. I have explained how the Cr-IPL template does not alter the Template:Limited Overs Matches template and does not use the Limited Overs template in any way that is different to, for example, how the Template:Cr or Template:Cr-rt templates are used in the page you linked to in your last post, 2007–08 Commonwealth Bank Series. That is to say, code from these two templates is used instead of countries' names, when filling in the values for the team parameters in the Template:Limited Overs Matches template for each listed match. However, I moved the discussion over here due to your suggestion that I move (what I interpreted as) the whole discussion, in order to facilitate a discussion. I see no reason to continue moving the discussion back and forward between talk pages and so I intend to leave it here.

Regarding the discussion of the "team colour icons", I made them part of the Cr-IPL template because they improve the appearance of the 2008 IPL page and because they allow easier identification of teams when a person glances at the screen, much in the same way that the national flags do in 2007–08 Commonwealth Bank Series. They are not intended to be the official flags of these teams. However, as Andrew Moylan suggests, choosing the colours for the icons based on the colours of the uniforms seems a sensible approach. I am aware that my icons are somewhat unrefined and I would invite you, or anyone else, to make superior icons to improve the appearance of the page.

Regarding the issue of whether the home team or the team which batted first should be listed first, in the example you gave (2007–08 Commonwealth Bank Series) you will notice that the ordering of teams is done by batting order. You mention that many pages, such as the 2007–08 Commonwealth Bank Series page, have match descriptions under the score summaries anyway, and consequently a reader can ascertain facts like the batting order. However, not all pages will or do, and for pages such as 2008 Indian Premier League there are 59 matches to list in total. In cases like this, a score summary is about as much as should be listed for each match, in order to keep the page concise. In any event, key information should be presented in as accessable a form as possible. The 2007–08 Commonwealth Bank Series page doesn't make use of the "(H)" symbol to indicate the home team. In this case, like for most ODI tournaments and series, this is entirely sensible, because the entire tournament was played in one country and so Australia was always the home team (in matches involving Australia), and this fact was revealed at the start of the article.

Finally, you say "As for the usage of this template, all I'd say is that I agree with fixtures being written as they are declared by organizers." What exactly do you mean by this? What do you mean by a match being "declared" and which "organizers" are you referring to? You also refer to various "consensuses" which allegedly reject the formatting of the Cr-IPL template as it stands. Please give me specific links to the places where the consensus decisions are discussed or summarised.

Thanks

Juwe (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My objection on use of the color system still remains. You say that you introduced the system in order to improve appearance. However, you shouldn't overlook the fact that when you use these colors for representing the team, it may actually purport a factuality that the teams use them as an icon of representation. And I'd say that appearance is certainly secondary when it comes to the putting right information in the article and disallowing any misrepresentation.

As for this template, have you considered the fact that the result itself is the best indicator of who batted first? I mean a single word (runs or wickets) is indicative as to whether the winning team batted first or second. When I mentioned organizers, I meant organizers of the said match, whether it's a regional cricket board or IPL in this case. The fixtures represented in tournament announcement should be followed in order. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves,

Since my last post I have further investigated cricket pages in wikipedia and have some further remarks about the issue of the ordering of teams in score summaries. It has become clear to me that the accepted format for presentation of scores, both for matches involving one innings per side and two, is to list the side batting first as the first team (rather than the home team). I refer you to the current template for use in two innings per side matches here: Template:Test match. In its talk page, the first point that is made after the presentation of the template itself is this: "Team1 should be the team batting first." (emphasis as found on the talk page). All 3 demonstrations of the template on that talk page have the team batting first as the team listed first even though in all 3 cases the team batting first is the away team. For matches with only one innings per side, I refer you to these 3 prominent examples: 2003 Cricket World Cup, 2007 Cricket World Cup and 2007 ICC World Twenty20. In the score summaries for every match on these 3 pages, the side listed first is the side which batted first.

However, in my discussions with you, you have repeatedly claimed that the formatting which I advocated, of listing the first team as the team which batted first, should be reverted because of your knowledge that this went against the accepted consensus on this issue. As I have demonstrated, the claim you made was patently untrue. In debates, I do not mind differences of opinion or even honestly mistaken beliefs. However, when someone seeks to represent that their argument is the one to be accepted because they know that the consensus supports their position, when in fact they cannot know this because the accepted consensus position is in actuality contrary to their position, this type of debate unacceptable. It wastes my time, your time, the time of other wikipedians, and leads to a lower quality wikipedia.

I recognise that you, like me, seek to improve the quality of wikipedia, and I recognise that you have made many valuable contributions to wikipedia. However, I must insist that you do not resort to these types of conterproductive debating techniques in the future.

In your latest post, you say "the fact that the result itself is the best indicator of who batted first". I have already explained how this is not always the case (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Limited_Overs_Matches#Home_team_or_team_which_batted_first_in_first_column.3F_.28Note:_this_discussion_originated_in_Talk:2008_Indian_Premier_League.29 for example). In any case, as it is now clear, the standard wikipedia format is to order the teams by reference to the order in which the teams batted.

Regarding your argument about the "team colour icons" representing original research, I refer you to Wikipedia:No original research#Original images and this article http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-December/017557.html by Jimmy Wales which is a link from the NOR page. The first link mentions that original images enjoy a broad exception from the NOR policy because "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." Jimmy Wales explains in his article that the policy "orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks" and other people who advocate extremely-non-mainstream theories in other fields (eg history). The (rather crude) icons which I have produced are merely visual aids for easier navigability of a wikipedia page. There are no outlandish theories. There are no controversial claims. In fact, there are no claims at all. This is not original research. It is not even close to original research. Hopefully, some talented person will soon endeavour to make a set of icons for all First-class, List A and domestic Twenty20 teams around the world, but until then I do not perceive any sensible arguments to abandon the present icons.

Juwe (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Home team or team which batted first in first column? (Note: this discussion originated in Talk:2008 Indian Premier League)

I notice that someone has already changed the order of teams back to having the home team as the first team, rather than the team which batted first. From my above posts, it is clear that I prefer the format of listing teams in batting order (with a "(H)" next to the home team). This allows for having BOTH pieces of information in the first line of the summary, rather than the other format, which merely has the home team information. For a more in-depth explanation, see my above posts. Would people please give their opinions on this issue? Thanks. Juwe (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the result makes it abundantly clear which team bats first and which team bats second. The current format should not be changed merely for the sake of change.CSumit ^Talk 06:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I have already mentioned some instances where it is not able to be determined at all (in the old format) from looking at the summary, eg a tied match. Juwe (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example where it is unclear is in certain Duckworth-Lewis situations (eg where one team is bowled out and the other team EITHER chased down the total, but rain stopped play with this team in front on DL OR the team HAD SET a target in less than 20 overs (due to rain), and the "1st team" had been bowled out chasing the target)...in this case it might be unclear who had batted first because the result might be "Team A won by 20 runs (DL)". This example might be a bit confusing, but it demonstrates that ambiguities can arise under the old format. Juwe (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why are you still conducting this discussion over here. This clearly concerns all those articles and matches that use the said template. There are certain guidelines set for usage of this template, and your argument obviously concerns alteration in this usage. LeaveSleaves (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi LeaveSleaves. I do intend to post a response to your earlier post and to follow your suggestion on posting elsewhere. However I don't have time just at the minute. I thought I had better answer the point made here though, considering I could do that quickly and easily. Thanks Juwe (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This was all decided long long ago. It was betting first and bowling second. with H to indicate home team ONLY IF THE VENUE made it unclear which team is the home side. This may be the case in some IPL games, but in almost 99% of cricket matches the home side is obvious. Also some scores make it impossible to know who batted first, and cricket scores are always given in the order of their innings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.134.228 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello 58.111.134.228,

As you can see from this section and the previous section of the talk page, I have been involved in a long recent discussion (since the start of the 2008 IPL) about these issues. You can see from this that I eventually discovered that having the batting team first was the standard practice (rather than just my amendment on the IPL page) . On the home team issue, I am unaware of any previous discussions on the matter - feel free to link me to them. My addition of the "(H)" tag to the home team was, as already mentioned, largely due to the particluar format of the competition and how it is fundamentally different to most international matches. At this point I will note that there are almost zero wikipedia pages with scorecards for the matches in the competition for domestic cricket competitions (First-class, List A or Twenty20) and as such, there is hardly an established practice for dealing with scorecards from these competitions. The fundamental point is this: most domestic competitions (eg the 2008 IPL) have a round robin group stage before any finals, where teams play each other both at home and away. For any given match, it is not immediately clear which team is the home team. This contrasts heavily with International matches, where entire tournaments and series usually take place entirely in one country. Thus, one team is always the home team, and the information about the tournament location is usually spelled out in the introduction to the relevant page. Even so, you may say that if you search carefully for information about the venue, you can indeed find it in the score summaries for the IPL match. There are a few things wrong with this approach though:

• Having the "(H)" next to the home team makes this information available instantly with just a quick glance at the page, rather than making the reader scrounge around for it.
• It may appear "obvious" where the match is located from looking at the venue, but not all people will know that the Rajasthan Royals play their matches in Jaipur, or that Kings XI Punjab are based in Mohali.
• Sometimes (eg in many Australian State matches), many different home venues are used, some of which even Australians (such as myself) don't at first know which State they are located in. In the 2008 IPL, Mumbai has already used 2 different venues for matches. In any case, it hardly makes sense to put an "(H)" next to a team in only certain matches where the question of the home team is judged to not be "obvious" - far better to make the format consistent.

Juwe (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Template documentation - "With Longer Name Here"

Looking at the Template documentation for this page, the addition of "With Longer Name Here" to the 2 team names (I think) detracts from the page and I am removing it. For a start, it seems unnecessary, as it is apparent that whatever the relevant team names are they should be entered in the "team1" and "team2" parameters, and that their appearance on the page itself (if they are long names) would simply extend into the vacant space. Secondly, it looks confusing. The example scorecard is for a match between South Africa and the Netherlands. However, the documentation gives the impression that some other words should be added to the page (eg South Africa National Cricket Team), when I don't think that is the intended message of the editor. Thirdly, the South Africa part looks bad, with the flag in between the words "South Africa" and "With Longer Name Here". Juwe (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation

This template is one of several I have come across, that forces fields to become wikilinks. Unfortunately, how to deal with disambiguation is not obvious, see this diff.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Attendance and Toss

There should be seperate fields for attendance and Toss. Managerarc (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added one for the toss, but I don't know that attendances are commonly recorded statistics for cricket matches. – PeeJay 23:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I have no problem with using initials for first name, but in the Result column, team flag should be used instead of only Australia it should be Australia won by 100 runs as it was in the older format and as it is in most of the old cricket tour articles, Seconldy 'rain' should be renamed to 'notes' because there are all kinds of different things added in that section, Thanks.--Managerarc (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

day night

I have added a day-night notification image, which I feel is great visually! Discuss if the location needs to be changed or it needs to be plain text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinikalantri (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Using an image is pointless when text performs exactly the same job, especially when the image includes only three characters that can be easily be replicated as text! – PeeJay 18:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The image is visually better than just D/N text. In future, if you want to make changes, discuss first.--ashwinikalantri ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean just like you discussed adding the "day/night" parameter in the first place? Anyway, Wikipedia has guidelines against frivolous use of icons. – PeeJay 02:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Kindly quote these guidelines. If you have a problem with the day/night parameter. You dont own this template. Deleting changes made by others just because you think differently without discussing is Vandalism. This is a final warning. Dont make changes without discussing. --ashwinikalantri ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Who made you an administrator all of a sudden? You made an undiscussed change as well, so don't give me that claptrap. Unlike some people, I don't know the Wikipedia guidelines off by heart, so it takes a while to track down where I found particular guidelines. Anyway, leave the template as it is until someone else comes in with an opinion. – PeeJay 16:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey PeeJay, It does look good in text!--ashwinikalantri ^talk 14:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why were you arguing?! Stop trying to ingratiate yourself! – PeeJay 14:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would I every try to suck up to you?!! Do you know there is something called humility? ashwinikalantri ^talk 21:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Layout

Please stop making unilateral changes to this template. If you want to make changes to the style of the template, suggest them here first, and we'll discuss them. Personally, I'm opposed to the changes you made. – PeeJay 14:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The toss won parameter was much neater before the last revert (even though it had two fields, instead of two). That should become the standard. The group stages of the current World Cup page are now all fucked up with the current layout. Fix it. Lugnuts (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Neater" is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the template looks better when all the notes are at the bottom, and that includes the toss, any info about rain delays and other notes. – PeeJay 19:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

putting most text in the syntax only standardizes how the toss will be represented. Again User:PeeJay2K3, I dont see the reason why you are reverting the more concise and "neater" layout. This way there is better utilization of the wasted space.

What wasted space? We put notes at the bottom of the template anyway, so why not the result of the toss. I do not believe that this decision should lie with either you or me, so leave the template alone until we have a consensus. Furthermore, if you insist on making these changes to this template, then I must insist that you do the same to Template:Test match; but again, don't make any changes to either template until we have consensus. – PeeJay 20:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3, you have a problem with the new layout and have promptly reverted it(again and again). I find that wrong, even more so from someone who has been here long enough. There are only 3 rows in the first column. The last row is empty (wasted space). Toss is not "notes" its a integral part of the match.

I am not going to touch the test match template. But you should be patient. No use starting a edit war. ashwinikalantri ^talk 20:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You obviously haven't listened to a word I've said to you. If you make an edit that another user finds objectionable (as you obviously have here), the edit is reverted and a discussion begins. The article/template/whatever is supposed to remain in the state it was in before the original edit. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Wikipedia itself, but that's how things work, so you'll have to either like it or lump it! – PeeJay 20:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I would like to see some WP rules here. You cant just make things of this kind up. Isnt it quite simple? You dont like, you talk. So far, you havent giving one convincing reason for your actions. ashwinikalantri ^talk 20:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You want rules? See WP:BRD. As for my disagreements with your changes, I shall list them:

1. You changed the default background colour for no apparent reason. The previous colour was fine, so why change it?

• I dont mind any color. I felt lighter was better as it stressed the content.

2. You reduced the font size of the "time" and "daynight" values. Do you think that the time of the match and whether it is a day/night game is less important than the date? In my opinion, the date and the time are equally important, so they should be the same size.

• I feel the date, teams and the result are most important. Rest all needs to be there but is of secondary importance.

3. You changed (D/N) to [D/N]. That is not a correct use for square brackets.

• Do not mind your change here.

4. You moved the toss info from the notes section at the bottom to the left-hand column. This forces some important information into a cramped space. To make it fit, you had to widen the column and reduce the font size. First of all, this creates some accessibility issues for those with poor eyesight, and second, you claim that the toss is important information, but by moving and shrinking it, you effectively reduce its importance.

• I have already discussed this. I am using wasted space. And as user:Lugnuts puts it, this only makes it neater.

5. You changed the "toss" syntax from "[team] won the toss and elected to [choice]" to "[team] won the toss, elected to [choice]". I assume the reason for that a concern over space, but since I'm disagreeing with moving the toss info to the left column anyway, that shouldn't matter.

• The syntax, as I have said, makes the toss statement uniform across WP.

These are my opinions, feel free to disagree with them, but I see little reason why you should. – PeeJay 20:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Any reasonable person can see that none of your reasons shows demerits of the new layout or merits the old one. ashwinikalantri ^talk 21:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Any reasonable person"? You make yourself sound like the White Knight of Wikipedia! Anyway, you haven't addressed the accessibility issues, which MUST be addressed according to WP:ACCESS. At WP:FOOTY, I have run across a number of editors with diminished eyesight who have said that small fonts are harder to read, and since Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible for everyone, we shouldn't reduce the font size without good reason. Aesthetics and "neatness" are not a good reason. – PeeJay 21:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As the "Grandfather of Wikipedia" and the "White Knight of Wikipedia" dont agree, lets just open it up for vote!

Vote

New Layout

{{ODI temp
 | date = 28 October 2009
 | time = 14:30
 | daynight = yes
 | team1 = {{Cr-rt|India}}
 | score1 = 352/7 (50 overs)
 | score2 = 255 (48.3 overs)
 | team2 = {{Cr|Australia}}
 | runs1 = [[MS Dhoni]] 124(107)
 | wickets1 = [[Mitchell Johnson]] 3/75 (10 overs)
 | runs2 = [[Michael Hussey]] 53(60)
 | wickets2 = [[Praveen Kumar]] 2/37 (8 overs)
 | result = India won by 99 runs
 | report = [http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/416237.html Scorecard] 
 | venue = [[Vidarbha Cricket Association Stadium]], [[Nagpur]]
 | umpires = [[Amiesh Saheba]] and [[Shavir Tarapore]]
 | motm = [[MS Dhoni]] (Ind)
 | tosswon = Australia
 | elected = field
 | rain =
}}

Old layout

28 October 2009 14:30 (D/N) Scorecard

India 352/7 (50 overs)	v	Australia 255 (48.3 overs)
MS Dhoni 124(107) Mitchell Johnson 3/75 (10 overs)		Michael Hussey 53(60) Praveen Kumar 2/37 (8 overs)

India won by 99 runs Vidarbha Cricket Association Stadium, Nagpur Umpires: Amiesh Saheba and Shavir Tarapore Player of the match: MS Dhoni (Ind)

• Australia won the toss and elected to field

Hi guys, looking at these with fresh eyes, I can't see a lot of difference, but I have read your discussions above. Regarding the template itself, I can't see anything in the new template that really benefits a change in syntax and editing all of the transclusions of this template (of which there are 530 pages using the template) to merit splitting the toss field into 2 separate fields for supposed consistency. I concede it uses the spare cell in the table, but the font is getting quite small. How does it look when teams like Pakistan International Airlines are used? I've tried it, it breaks the formatting. I'm not sure I approve of the "Australia won the toss, elected to field" incorrect grammar either.

Regarding the conduct here, I'll mention that we have long had a practice at WP:CRIC to discuss first, and edit later. There are occasions where you can be WP:BOLD and make a change, but as soon as that is contested, a proper discussion is only right and proper. To continue to push your views by reverting/making edits is just not cricket. We prefer to propose anything regarding templates (as you will see if you search the archive for discussions regarding "Template:Infobox cricketer biography"/"Template:Infobox cricketer" which you tried to change the other day by tinkering with the template to try and get T20 stats into a 6 column box, something which has been discussed to death with the consistent conclusion being that, with the template in it's current format, it doesn't work, and is unnecessary). We discuss all of these template changes as the effect a lot of articles, and need a lot of manpower to effect. We haven't finished switching all of the player infoboxes nearly 3 years on, so changes such as those you were trying to effect the other day would just compound this.

The other matter to point out is to strongly urge you, Ashwini, not to tick the "This is a minor edit" box when making any changes other than minor spelling/one word type edits. It stops the edits appearing on watchlists and means edits may not be picked up on. I believe I have suggested this to you before.

I can't see what PeeJay has done wrong here, and he has brought it to a wider audience, something which should always be done in matters of disagreement. If you were looking for a !vote, I'd say there is no strong evidence to me that a change is beneficial.—User:MDCollins (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel that toss is an important part of a cricket game, and shouldnt be a foot note. --ashwinikalantri ^talk 21:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a valid point, except you have made the information smaller, and more tucked in. Just because it is at the bottom of the box doesn't make it less visual (it's not a true footnote which is located elsewhere on the page). I agree with you that it looks neater in the new version, but if you think it is more important, I would say that was better accomplished bigger, and standing on its own!—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Date, teams, scores and the result, Things that most people will be interested in are in the Normal font. The rest which needs to be there, but is not as important is in a small font.

If your argument stands, then why is the venue or the man of the match in small font? They are as important, if not more, as the toss. Why should toss be placed away from everything else? ashwinikalantri ^talk 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Template problem

There seems to be some problem with this template. In 2009 ICC World Twenty20, why is everything below warm-up matches is hidden? I can't figure out any problem with the format. There must be some issues with this template. --- Managerarc ^talk 18:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Microformats

Can the hCard and hCalendar microformats, which are used in Template:Test match, be used in this template?

Missing end tag lint errors

Both templates {{Single-innings cricket match}} and {{Two-innings cricket match}} generate Missing end tag lint errors whenever the |notes= parameter is extended to multiple lines, as in

• West Indian cricket team against Pakistan in the UAE in 2016–17
• South African cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2018
• West Indian cricket team in Pakistan in 2017–18

and probably many others. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the italics styling to the outside div which should fix this. It also means it is no longer necessary to add italics manually to the extra lines. Tholme (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi all, Should this template title name would be changed to Double-innings cricket match because in cricket matches except Test we have double innings. Hope for your positive response. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

We have a separate template for games with more than one innings per team, so there's no need to change the title of this template. It's fit for purpose. – PeeJay 23:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

adding a new parameter

Hello template editors and User:PeeJay Can anyone of you add a parameter for match crowd Attendance just like Template:Football box?

Thanks. A Cricket Premi (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Attendance isn’t usually tracked for cricket matches. Can you provide some examples of where the attendance has been reported? I definitely think those would be the exception rather than the rule. – PeeJay 10:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, those are not usually recorded. But having such parameters won't do any harm to the template, I guess. See 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. For every matches attendance was recorded. But due to unavailability of attendance parameters, it was added with the Venue parameter. If such parameter is made available then the editors can add the attendance, if it is recorded, if not, then the parameter should be left vacant.

Thank You. A Cricket Premi (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You might want to raise it at WT:CRIC in order to get a wider spread of opinions. – PeeJay 15:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. A Cricket Premi (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Super-over score parameter?

Can we have super over scores parameters to record the final scores in the super over, rather than mentioning them in the notes? it can be used optionally only in case of tied matches, with super-over having become a regular method to decide the winner in tied white ball matches. Cric editor (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with mentioning it in notes? – PeeJay 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)