Talk:Indian cricket team in the West Indies in 2017

Match reports

These have been removed several times. I invite the main contributor Editor5454 (talk · contribs) to convince the community as to why they are needed. Also @Cricket246:. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: : You are welcome. Always happy to help. And I agree this is the best solution to invite the main contributor to put his arguments on why we should keep match reports. After going through all pros and cons I'm sure the community will be able to take a unanimous decision on whether to keep the match reports or not!! 🙂 Cricket246 (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Firstly, I'd like to point out to both of you, your violation of Wikiquette. Anyway, since Lugnuts has had a history in that line, it is no surprize coming from him/her. Since it is you who has a problem with the content that I added, which I had justified with WP:NOTSTATS and explained, that you paid no heed to, you must have opened a discussion here without deleting the content, on why the content must be deleted. My two times reverting to the original versions were a justification of that, which I had explained as well. Secondly, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and thus has to contain encyclopaediac content. An entire page containing just a list of brief scorecards with a few numbers thrown here and there is no way of presenting a page. WP:NOTSTATS clearly mentions that "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" is something that Wikipedia should not be. This, this, this and this are among the few very well written and presented Wikipedia pages on cricket that have achieved FA and GA status, given to pages of the highest quality on Wiki. Here is an example of a badly presented page: just an endless list of brief scorecards. If one wants only to know the match result, top-scorer and top wicket-taker, he/she has ESPN Cricinfo, CricketArchive and many other scores- and stats-hosting websites. Wiki on the other hand, supports scores with a brief write-up detailing the background, the prevailing weather conditions, and other technical insights of the game (supported with sources). Thirdly, responding to Lugnuts accusing the content of having been "terribly written" by me, I'd like to say that I am no Shakespeare, and my writing has faults, which I believed he/she had hurriedly rectified (that the edit history of page shows, and I'm thankful to). And, I fail to understand what part of the content is WP:OR. Anything that is not in the source mentioned by me? Care to point them out? Thanks. Editor5454 (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding on, I'd like to point out WikiProject Cricket/Assessment clearly stating that top quality status are awarded to those articles (of cricket) in Wikipedia that contain "great source for encyclopedic information", "greater attention to detail ... [to] enhance the reader experience" and of the sort. My humble efforts are only in these lines. Thanks. Editor5454 (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Anyway, since Lugnuts has had a history in that line, it is no surprize coming from him/her." I stopped reading there. Come back when you stop with the personal attacks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

An exhibit of your uncivil behavior with me; plenty otherwise, I don't want to go there. Please respond to the points I made. Editor5454 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

And since then, you've been WP:HOUNDING me. Kindly go away with your trolling. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, how about some response to the points I made? And, when did I "hound" you? Your comments are absolutely ridiculous. You want to harass me further? Ok, this is the place, where you already have. Not here. Here, you made accusations against me. I responded to them point-by-point. Now, I want yours. Don't chicken. Editor5454 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You're following me around like a bad smell. You had lots of edits reverted (and rightly so), and now you wont drop the WP:STICK. Go back to whatever amused you before you started with this pathetic trolling. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well well, "bad smell", "lots of edits reverted", "stick", "whatever amused" me, "pathetic trolling"! Haha, you sir are a joke! Happy editing! Editor5454 (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Next time you revert the edits without a consensus reached here will lead you to being blocked. Happy editing! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

... and let's see how that will happen. A consensus has to be reached on why it has to be removed and not on why it has to be kept. Because as it appears, only you are having a problem here. Editor5454 (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

THREE editors have removed them. You must be blind. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

... of which one is an IP, which was reverted by another IP. Cricket246 felt the content was an "essay", while you felt it was "terribly written" and based on "original research". This is the summary! You have not mentioned what part is "terribly written" coz, you have made many corrections yourself (and then did not feel the need to remove it), and also not mentioned what part of it is "original research". Every line of the content is sourced and you are free to verify. Much like here, you have gone on calling me names, accusing me of things, and had not one credible argument. Such a pity! If a consensus is established by a good number of the editors wanting it removed, citing Wiki guidelines, you are free to. But please, stick to the point, and throw in some constructive arguments for god's sake! Editor5454 (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As a reader my reading experience hasn't improved one bit because of the essays so we can't keep them... We generally don't include match reports in Wikipedia pages so if you want to get them included you need to get a majority of the community to support your view which you don't have at the moment... So we can't keep it now because we have to stick to the original format unless majority of the community suggests a change is necessary!!! Cricket246 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cricket246. Could you tell us who this "We" are? Also, there is no "original format" that says match description is not to be included below the brief scorecards. If there is any such "original format", it has to be in WP:CRICKET, which makes clear mention of the need of "encyclopaediac content" in articles for better quality and in WP:NOTSTATS, for better clarity, and not mere mentioning of scores and statistics. The probable reason why the "original format" in your opinion needs no match description is because, editors largely have not contributed any, except for some who I presume and also found out are no longer active. Hence, in the past few years, a small number of registered and IP editors have only added scorecards, and you appear to be new here. I reiterate that mere addition of scorecards are pointless unless supported by content in words, at least a few lines, giving an insight of the game, with credible sources. Also, apparently, it is only the two of you who have been having an issue here. So, why not arrive at a consensus on why the match description has to be removed, because I have presented my argument supported by multiple sources including Wiki guidelines. I hope something from your side as well. Thanks. Editor5454 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

According to us it's utterly reduntant... Providing a better clarity is one thing while mistaking Wikipedia for an essay writing competition is another... Unfortunately you fall in the later category... It's utterly ridiculous to include what weather forecasts were predicted for the match or what Jeffrey Dujon said about the pitch before the match... Wikipedia is not a news reporting agency!!! Cricket246 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If you feel providing the match description detailing the match, weather and pitch (which is important to understand the bowling and batting conditions better, and why a match was high/low-scoring or why the number of overs was reduced or the match abandoned), is an "essay writing competition", then I guess, so be it. Jeff Dujon is a former West Indies cricketer and is covering the series for a channel, probably. His view of the pitch character was important only in that I could find no other source that said it. If you find any other source, you are most welcome to add there. But, removing the entire content and dismissing weather forecast and pitch details as "utterly ridiculous" is utterly ridiculous. Assuming you did not understand the term "encyclopedic content", I can help. Well, Google says it means "comprehensive in terms of information", which is what Wikipedia strives to achieve. My efforts are exactly in these lines. Wikipedia is not news-reporting, and neither is it stats-hosting. So, your style of listing endlessly the brief scorecards is by far non-encyclopedic. Also, try reading this and understand for once what "news reporting" in Wikipedia is/is not. Thanks. Editor5454 (talk)

Hi everybody. Without saying too much, I agree that having the match summaries is a great thing if they're done well. Even if the initial drafting of them is poor (I'm not saying it was but I'm just responding to that point), I think it can be improved over time. As an avid follower in India myself, I enjoys reading good summaries and not having just scorecards. Coupled with Editor's point about the Wikiproject's stated desire for more detail, and the high quality status of other series articles with these summaries, I agree we should try to keep the content and emulate those articles. Anyway, just my two cents! I think Lugnuts and Cricket have made great points, too, but in the end I'd personally like to see this kind of content in international ODI/Test series articles. Thank you all for the hearty (and entertaining) debate! Climate7298 (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate your comment. I think most of us love reading brief summaries of a match, that really give an insight detailing its match's background, conditions of play, technicalities involved in say, dismissals / bowling variations / batting strokes involved in an important event in the game. Like I have mentioned above, brilliant articles have been written that include these and have achieved FA and GA status. It is very disappointing when an someone with over 10 years of editing experience (who understands the requirements and standards of Wikipedia) just dismisses your write-up as "terribly written", calls it "original research", and deletes the entire content, and another fairly new editor, quite amusingly, calling it an "essay competition". Despite my citing Wiki guidelines and countering every argument with valid points, they have not replied, and in turn ask me to build a consensus on why match reports are necessary because there is apparently some sort of an "original format" that excludes them. I am sorry, but as long as we have such editors, cricket-related articles on Wiki will remain just a list of scores and statistics. We need more of great and sensible contributors like BlackJack, PeeJay2K3, Ianblair23 etc. — Editor5454 (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, something new every day. It's the first time anyone has ever accused me of that: LOL! Let me have a read of the whole thing when I've a moment to spare (a bit rushed right now) and I'll see if I can contribute. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The main issue is that the one person who wants to include them writes terrible reports, full of WP:OR that don't add any real value to an article. There's not much point in writting a load of prose when their English is terrible, needing lots and lots of cleanup. They usually consist of lots of guff around x player scored y runs. Someone took some wickets, a bit of rain here, something else happened, and then a stumping/run-out/insert cricket term here. Basically a load of run of the mill nonsense. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Quality notwithstanding, what else can you say about a cricket match without getting into WP:OR territory. "So-and-so scored X runs before being dismissed by Whatshisname" is about the limit, unless you start talking about dismissal chances. What do you think of the level of detail at 2009 Ashes series? Is that too run of the mill for you? – PeeJay 16:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts, but, did you not make make "lots of cleanup" to my "terrible" reports? And like Climate7298 mentioned, "it can be improved over time". Why would you delete the entire content giving absurd explanations and when asked to point at the flaws, all that you have to say is that it is filled with WP:OR and that my "English is terrible"? English is my third language and so yes, is not great. But, I put in effort and to the best of my ability, improve an article, supported by sources, and work within the limits of Wiki's policies and guidelines. In this context, match reports as is seen in many 'good' pages, do add value to the otherwise bland pages filled with unexplained numbers. Also, like PeeJay2K3 added, "there's not much say about a cricket match without getting into WP:OR territory". I have cited multiple sources to the content and tried to include only those details that the sources carry. Why don't you point the OR out or delete if unnecessary instead of removing them entire content which was uncalled for. Anyway, unless you and Cricket246 establish a consensus on why such reports have to be removed, it will stay! Thanks. Editor5454 (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It's all a pile of OR and terribly written. There's not much more to add. Now find that consensus you crave to add it back in, and you're laughing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I support addition of match summaries as long as they are crisp and don't go into unnecessary details. Articles like 2015 Ashes series and 2013–14 Ashes series would not have got featured in the ITN section of the Main Page had nobody added those match summaries. This is a prose encyclopedia and we should encourage addition of brief match reports to these tour articles in order to improve reader experience. Dee03 11:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! My attempt at it was dismissed as "terribly written" and "lots of OR". One can find it drowned in the page's history. Are they so bad that they can never be improved? And do adding these reports need "consensus" from the community? Funny how some fail to understand the very purpose of an encyclopedia. Editor5454 (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

However, your writting is utter dogshit and would not help improve the encyclopedia one bit. When you can write something that isn't littered with terrible grammar, poor spelling and mistakes, then maybe you'd have a valid point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Lugnuts, you can make personal attacks on my talk page; this is no place for it. And, I don't write content on the wall of your house that I need your approval for all that I do here. My writing definitely has flaws, but I believe they are of acceptable standards, and my editing history and the content in question is out there for all to see. So, I do not agree that this can never be improved. Also, is there any guideline that calls for deletion of content in its entirety only because the language is poor or the grammar faulty? Secondly, someone who has spent over 10 years in only updating scores and writing 50,000 two-line articles should be the last person to give advices on addition of prosaic content. Thirdly, Lugnuts, please be polite to your fellow editors and collaborate with them/us in improving the articles. This can help. Going by your history, it must be hard. But, try! Editor5454 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"but I believe they are of acceptable standards" - That's where you are wrong - they're terrible. You write some of the worst attempts at prose I've ever seen. You ask not to attack other editor's work, but do just that in your very own post. Come back when your competency levels have improved enough for you to write more than one paragraph in English that doesn't need a massive amount of work. I'm sure you have something better to do than troll here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"troll"? lolwut? I've been here for 5 years, collaborated with many (mostly) friendly and other experienced editors, and have always involved in constructive discussions on how an article could be improved. My English may not be great, but has not often been questioned; experienced users generally correct faulty grammar and spelling errors than just delete the entire content and call me a "troll" for trying to justify my stance on why it should be restored and how, improved. I mean, who does that? So Lugnuts, I certainly don't need your certificate on competence. "Come back when..." What? Simply because you create these pages, do you think you are authorized to delete whatever content other editors add, unquestioned? And when questioned, you take it upon yourself and lose it, before starting to call them names, the edit histories of many cricket-related pages being a testimony of that. I'd value anyone else's genuine criticism supported with pointing out and citing Wiki guidelines on what part of the content is flawed, and how it could be improved, than someone who writes a one- or two-line hate-filled reply to my comments and deviating farther from the consensus. If I may, to productive contributors who refuse to collaborate and accept criticism, Antandrus has a name. And, like he adds, "There's plenty of places on Wikipedia you can still make a difference." So, thank you and good bye! Editor5454 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)