This page is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket
There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
This article was hit by multiple vandals today. I've protected the article for now just to stop the abuse, but I don't know enough about cricket to identify a "good" version to revert to. I'd appreciate any help from people with more cricket knowledge than I have. Joyous!Noise!17:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The |host= parameter is currently being used to refer to the country(s) the event was held, but the ICC considers the relevant governing body as hosts. This has led to many editing disputes (from 2021 Men's T20 World Cup to 2025 ICC Champions Trophy).
Proposal: All the current usage of |host= parameter should be switched to a |country= parameter and the |host= parameter should be for host bodies (only for ICC events).
Summary: If hosting body and location are the same, they should only have the |host= parameter with governing bodies instead of the countries, if they vary should have both parameters.
Note: This should have no impact on domestic events (including franchise leagues), because they won't be using either parameters, just as how they're now.
I think you always want to show the country(s) where the tournament took place, in preferences to the organisation providing (some of) the stadiums. Spike 'em (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"always want to show the country(s) where the tournament took place" - that's what currently being done, I just want to add a separate parameter for the actual organizers. Vestrian24Bio13:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Example 1 shows the cricket boards instead of the countries. Every other major supporting event (football WC, Olympics/ athletics, rugby WC) shows the host city or country and then maybe the organising committee. I think cricket articles should continue to do the same, even if the ICC is a complete clusterfuck. Spike 'em (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, having a field labelled "country(s)" could be seen as listing competing countries, rather than where the tournament took place. Spike 'em (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, we could come with a better label for it, it's just a proposal - I am open for suggestions.
My point was that, every time organizing body and locations defer, we end up having edit wars and long talk page discussions. This could work as a solution to avoid repeating that every year. That's all. Vestrian24Bio16:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep the prose in the lead, but see no reason why the T20 stats are not merged, as they are done for every other player I've ever seen. Spike 'em (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The previous consensus of TfD is only for winning teams, but we currently have squad navboxes for all the teams. So, that consensus isn't being followed properly by that means.. Vestrian24Bio06:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think it should be the option D or none. I prefer D most because if you want to add navboxes for team squads then you must add it for all the teams. Otherwise, it will look odd to see just champion or the semi finalists squad with navboxes and not for other teams. Adding navboxes can also help to spectate the squads at a glance. However, my final say is if you want to add navboxes for team squads then add for either all teams or for none. The format should be same for all I think. Samin Yasar KZS (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we either have squad navboxes for all the participating teams or none at all, having these navboxes for just semi-finalists or finalists doesn't make sense. And adding onto that, if we end up having navboxes at all, we should restrict it to World Cups only (either formats) not for other events like Champions Trophy. Cric editor (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option D: Have navboxes for each and every team which has played in each and every ICC and ACC tournament and ICC WTC final; Olympic, Asian and Commonwealth Games, World Championship of Cricket and other major significant multi-team tournaments such as Nehru Cup etc. - able to display squad navboxes effectively, a simple scroll down a player's page can show how many ICC and ACC tournaments he / she has participated / been selected for. Also a longtime convention in other sports. Will be willing to work on it - Start from 1975 for men and 1973 for women and make / update all navboxes for each team which participated with coach and possible replacements if documented, and paste them in their articles. (Other than articles of replacement reserve players). Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have not changed or removed / added any "comment". Just organized it and put a boldened mark in front of what everyone is saying to make this discussion look clean, as it was really looking cluttered. Now if its good with you, knowing what I had intended, Id appreciate you reverting your removals back to what I had done. Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, with your links and mentions, It looks very cluttered. For your own benifit of getting a prompt result out of this discussion, I reccomend you do it, or tell me you understand and I will do it again. Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option D - In the same way that we have navboxes for every participating squad at the FIFA World Cup, the UEFA European Championship and the Rugby World Cup, I don't see any reason why we can't do the same for the Cricket World Cup and the ICC Champions Trophy. – PeeJay10:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
does not matter. it is an icc tournament, and in numeric quantities regarded the same as any world cup it will now be played once every four years and is confirmed to not be going anywhere, which for the longest time was a point of concern since 2012-2013. Pharaoh496 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option A, and only for major tournaments (i.e. world cups). Existing consensus is clear. There are simply too many tournaments to be having navboxes for everything without creating an barely navigable mess. The insufferable clutter inflicted on readers in other sports articles should not be allowed to creep anywhere else. wjematherplease leave a message...10:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option D for World Cup, Option A for others - Do you have to basket all ICC events in the same way? My view is the World Cup remains the most important ICC tournament so I'm fine with keeping that as Option D, the linked consensus is Option A for the Champions Trophy and we currently have Option A for the World Test Championship. To me that leaves the T20 World Cup as the main discussion point, especially as we currently have a mixture with winners for 2007-2010, winners and India for 2012-2016, 7 random teams of 16 for 2021, 10 random teams of 16 for 2022 and all teams for 2024. Clearly this should be consistent across all T20 World Cups which either means creating lots of templates for old tournaments (would the work be worth it) or deleting non-winners from 2012 onwards. It's an extreme example but the Rohit Sharma page already has 24 templates, so to think he needs two more as he doesn't have the 2009 and 2010 World T20 seems somewhat absurd as having that many templates already must be a barrier rather than an aid to navigation. So I'd lean toward Option A for the T20 World Cup, that would leave the 50-over World Cup as the outlier but I believe the argument can be made it remains the most important tournament in the sport. JP (Talk) 10:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat similarly minded : should have squad navbox for 50-over WC, and possibly T20 too. Having a tournament every 2 years does seem to mean they are overly proliferated, and when it gets to the stage the navboxes are hidden in a stacked group on player pages, it is clear that they are not being used for their intended purpose (to aid navigation between similar articles).
We don't need navboxes for every squad; especially squads that didn't win the trophy That is one editor's comment on a single TfD, not necessarily the consenus position. Spike 'em (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Navboxes only for World Cup (20 and 50 over) winners only, or maybe stretch to finalists. The TfD consensuses from previous years that not every tournament needs squad boxes for all teams is sensible in my opinion. Having templates for every team at every regional event is excessive (regardless of whether other sports do that, I still don't believe it's right there either). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CT was a regular tournament from 1998-2006, then it got postponed to 2009 and 2013 was a supposed final event before a 2017 revival. After an 8 year gap, it is back and confirmed by the ICC that it is here to stay. It is an ICC event and all ICC wins are counted the same in numeric quantities, and not having navboxes for teams (mind you, lesser number off), when this happens in every other sport, just because some people still think this tournament is not "important enough", after just having had a complete footing stage after what, 19 years, is extremely weird. Pharaoh496 (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what does this mean and all ICC wins are counted the same in numeric quantities? No-one treats winning the CT as anyway comparable to winning one of the WCs. Spike 'em (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
subjective opinion. you cant use the logic of "treating it as important" in order to decide squad navbox or not when both wc and ct are listed together in the future icc cycle, theres a similar process of hositng tournaments, they are proper medalled tournaments. we should either have the same rule for all icc events or for none of them at all.
to answer your question - for example, the ict proudly displays having won 7 icc tournaments. this does not clearly only include the world cups. whenever the topic of major international cricket tournaments comes up, ct is always mentioned Pharaoh496 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That someone wants to count total wins in ICC events is irrelevant. The Champions Trophy remains nowhere near the World Cup(s) in terms of importance or interest. Claiming otherwise is plainly ridiculous. The logical conclusion to this tcreep is having navboxes for every international competition, series or even one-off match. The line obviously has to be drawn somewhere, and right at the top is the best place to do it: winners of world cups only. wjematherplease leave a message...11:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as I have put it in the above message, you cannot ridicule the tournament over a subjective opinion.
navboxes actually exist for the ashes series, which according to you is supposedely fine but for an actual functioning icc trophy isnt
why follow one rule for the odiwc and t20wc but not the ct because it does not have "wc" in the name - despite hosts being decided together in the same future cycle, and it actually being an icc trophy just like the others? not to mention the ct predates the t20wc by like almost a decade
I have opened up a discussion on whether Heather Knight was sacked or she resigned voluntarily as England Women's Captain. Someone made an edit that says she was sacked. This is clearly a case of Sources Differ. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
