Talk:South Africa national cricket team
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Sections
This article is dying for a breakdown into clear cut sections - but I dont feel up to it just yet! anyone? Tyhopho 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Turns out I was up to it :-) Look forwrad to seeing what anyone else makes of what Ive started with. Tyhopho 17:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Name?
Did the cricket team been called the Springboks during the past? Dr.Poison 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Before 1991, and yes, that deserves a mention in the article. Tintin (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I was sure they were known as the Springboks in the 1992 World Cup and became the Proteas only in about 1993, though I can't find anything online to support that, nor am I South African.Thedangerouskitchen 10:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okeay; I'm not saying that it shouldn't be mentioned. But shouldn't be mentioned that it was called bye that name before 1991? Dr.Poison 11:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flags and stuff
What flag to use on articles, e.g. Reggie Schwarz since there were three flags:
Also in the infobox, which abbreviation to use since SA did not becom a republic until 1961 (and then what to do if careers overlapped)? — Dunc|☺ 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Current flag, as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/archive2#Which_South_African_flag_should_we_use.3F Tintin (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- By the same logic, RSA should be used for all eras, though you can ask for opinions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket Tintin (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quota comment
"Due to a racial quota policy, the side now contains coloured players, unlike the past"
Suggests (to me anyway) that the only reason that the side contains coloured players is because of quota system. This is blatently false. I am not defending quota systems (because I am heavily opposed to them) however the remark seems awefully out of place. Paul Hjul 10:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I think the quota system, and any controversy surrounding it, needs to be addressed in the article, but not in this way. Andrew nixon 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)