Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joshurtree (talk | contribs) at 14:14, 30 August 2005 (→Test Ranking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Name change

What do you think about moving the article to: The 2005 Ashes? --Commander Keane 06:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Don't think I'd mind too much - the article name as it stands is a bit unwieldy and unnecessary (given that there's only going to be one Ashes this year) Sam Vimes 08:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it, and will fix up any double redirects soon (at the moment I think I am waitng for a cache to purge for a template to update or something) --Commander Keane 16:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Upcoming match layout

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.

Referee appointments have been added for the Third, Fourth and Final Tests straight off the ICC website. It is accurate as of 7:04 AM Mountain Daylight Time, Sunday, August 7, 2005.

Cheers, anonymous IP address. ;) Sam Vimes 16:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate match summaries

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)

Probably the England v Australia 21-25 July 2005 one. That's the plan, anyway. Sam Vimes 14:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Third test

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.

Wow! Thanks a bunch - that's something off my workload for the week. For future reference, I moved the English innings details to the top, since they batted first (there is logic in that template! ;)) So, if you intend to continue writing about cricket matches here, please stick to that format. Cheers anyway! Sam Vimes 06:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you must forgive me then, I'm still a bit of an amateur cricket fan myself, being from Canada and all...I am doing my very best to keep up. :)

Hehe, welcome from another "amateur", then :). I'm from Norway, as you can see from my user page. Sam Vimes 13:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Fourth Test Updates

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

Maybe we could try an internet chat, like ICQ, to coordinate. --Commander Keane 11:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Merge summary pages for now

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 would make a small objection. I don't quite see the advantage in pulling them together now - what would you like to do with them that you can't do when they're on separate pages? And the advantage of having each match summary on a separate page is that they can appear on pages like 2005 English cricket season (1-15 August). Sam Vimes 15:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I won't move anything. It was just that when I visited earlier today, a match summary for day 5 of the most recent Test wasn't on this article (but it was at the idividual page). I think having all the summaries on the this artilce during the series encourages more editing (I know form my 2005 Tour de France experience). Maybe for next time (two years, I know) we won't make the separate summary artilces until the series is finshed. --Commander Keane 15:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that last points - I've come to the conclusion myself that the method used for the English cricket season games isn't terribly efficient, strains resources on servers, and can nearly as easily be done by means of subst commands. Just to your point that a match summary on day 5 wasn't on this page but on the individual page - that comes from a quirky server thing. People should purge the server cache of the 2005 Ashes page after they do updates - use this link to purge the cache.

Also, I'm not quite sure what you're proposing to do - as I understand it, you want to copy the content from the individual pages onto here, and then keep them on the 1st Test, 2nd Test etc. articles as well? Sam Vimes 15:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I was proposing, for the next series, that articles like First Test: England v Australia (21-24 July) are not created until a couple of weeks after the completion of the entire series, and that all content goes in the The 2005 Ashes article until then. This way there will not be cache issues. I am a little confused though, how is the info from First Test: England v Australia (21-24 July) updated on The 2005 Ashes. I assumed it was a manual process, but maybe not. --Commander Keane 15:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise that we were using templates! Much of my conversation is redundent then. Sorry 'bout that. --Commander Keane 15:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Main headers

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)

Test Ranking

"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)

I've ploughed through the ICC archive of Test rankings and all I can find is fifth - they may have been seventh on the Wisden rankings at one point, but I don't know where to get those. Sam Vimes 05:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. may have been wrong here. I remember reading this on the BBC website, but I can't find it either now. My (possibly faulty) memory is that the nadir was sometime in the late Atherton era, prior to Bangladesh being given test status, so 7th is possible, being ahead of Bangladesh is not. However, I'd stand by the sentiment. England were frankly an embarrassment in the 90s. Jonathan

Found some more "definitive" info: Ratings graphs. There are several low points: 6th of 7 in 1990-91, 6th of 9 from 93 to 98. Never lower than that in the professional era. I'll change the main article. Jonathan

That site works its own figures out by its own system - it's not a reflection of the ICC/Wisden rankings. For example in December 2004 they had South Africa in second whereas the ICC had them sixth. There might've been a lower point for England by that system. --Cherry blossom tree 11:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the ICC ranking system only started in May 2001. The Wisden had ranking system going back to 1996, which the first ICC rankings were based on but have since changed the system. So any rankings before 1996 are completly unofficial.--josh 14:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)