Talk:List of current first-class cricket teams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thinks the tables are too cramped. I also think the websites should be formatted differently. User:Nichalp/sg July 2, 2005 15:21 (UTC)

Nicholas, feel free to tweak it as you see fit, jguk 2 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

What's the deal with Jharkhand and Bihar? Cricketarchive consistently uses Bihar, cricinfo used Bihar for the line-up but Jharkhand for the scorecards...it's gotta confuse some people. Maybe Nichalp can clear that one up for me? Sam Vimes 3 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

There was a note on first-class cricket, which I removed as part of setting up this page. It said that Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar state (politically this is, not cricket-wise - have a look at Jharkhand). As most of the cricketing infrastructure of the old Bihar state was in Jharkhand, Jharkhand became the first-class team, replacing Bihar, jguk 3 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)

I'll add that piece of information as a footnote under India, then. Sam Vimes 3 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)

Is it necessary to include the sponsors of the Australian state sides? The nicknames are unnecessary but not too bad, but including the sponsors is a bit too much. JPD 11:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Aren't the sponsor's names now part of the official names of these teams though? jguk 11:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In the sense that those names are used officially, yes. However, the teams are also still sometimes officially referred to simply by the name of their state. Since the state names have been around from the start of the cricket team, and will last, whereas the sponsor's will change quite frequently, it makes more sense to use the state names. JPD 16:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you. I think it's important to give the current team name (especially given the title of this list). Where the state name is not obvious from the official team name, the state is given in brackets. Doesn't this give us the best of both worlds? jguk 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Both names are used official, so one name is not more official than the other. The teams are still officially representatives of the state cricket associations, not like in South Africa. In this situation, I think it is better to stick with the name that has continuity. JPD 11:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)