Talk:Warwickshire v Kent 1 May 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This definitely doesn't meet the CSD criteria. There have been votes about the significance of individual cricket matches at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005 and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Nottinghamshire_v_Yorkshire_26_June_2005 and although there has been little consensus, the agreement has been to keep them. Yes, the article provides little context, and is nonsensical to people who don't understand cricket, but that's because the context is provided on pages its content is "transcluded" into. Please do not speedy. Thanks, Sam Vimes 16:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I still think SpeedyShow me any other Encyclopedia in the world that displays particular cricket games, please. Besides, nowhere in the article (except for the categories section) tells which sport is this article about. That the discussion has been had before does not mean anything, I think. I agree with the opinions that said that this should be moved to Wikinews, or something similar. Can I start making article about the japanese baseball league matches? --Lacrymology 16:57:48, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

Well, specialised sport encyclopedias do. And this is an encyclopedia that wishes to cover all information. Yes, I suppose you can start making articles on Japanese baseball matches - I wouldn't mind, sport has enough significance to justify it. Besides, if you read that article carefully, the text is going to be merged into other articles in two months' time, when the season is over. Then these articles will quite probably be deleted. The reason why it doesn't tell what sport it is about is because its content is also displayed on Warwickshire County Cricket Club in 2005 and similar pages - where it is absolutely not necessary to make clear what sport it is, and only gets redundant because there are about 30 matches of this sort. Point is, it certainly shouldn't be deleted without discussion! Sam Vimes 17:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, removed the speedy, and didn't even mark it as Vfd, but will consider it. Why not writing directly on the to-be-merged articles? I think this also condones other nonsensical articles. A single article would be have much more sense and would save Wikipedia a lot of Hard disk space and bandwith. Even deleted pages waste HD space in histories, talk pages and whatnot. Lacrymology 17:11:49, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

I haven't seen any nonsensical articles coming forward as a result of this approach which, as it started in April is already in its fifth month. It hardly takes up much disk space either - suppose we have 400 of these articles of an average 4kb each - not exactly cluttering up the system. I understand you have genuine concerns, yet would note that as Sam says, it's all been discussed already, and on the empirical evidence so far your concerns on a precedent for "nonsense" are unfounded, jguk 17:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, personally I think renominating pages like this one for VfD is a waste of time, as people will say we've heard these arguments before. Yes, it may waste a wee bit of hard disk space, but the founder of this encyclopedia has said "Hard disks are cheap", so I don't think that is an issue. In fact, one of the founding principles of Wikipedia is that "Wikipedia is not paper". As for the point about writing directly on the to-be-merged articles - yes, the cricket contributors have been considering it, but this method saves quite a lot of time because the same content belongs on about four pages. Copying and pasting it takes a bit of work, plus people can correct an error on this page and it will be corrected on all four pages the match belongs Sam Vimes 17:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, point taken. Maybe I was kind of upset because 7 of 7 random articles that I checked were either CSD candidates or awful studs. Still, I think anyone who hasnt seen the older discussion would mark this for speedy. Maybe some kind of header template is in order? Lacrymology 17:26:15, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

I agree - but the problem is that that header template would appear on all the pages as well. Maybe we could put one on the talk page. Sam Vimes 17:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The header would need to be hidden (using the <!-- --> function. Anyone editing the article (eg to put a speedy template or a VfD template on it!) would see it - but it wouldn't be visible to readers, jguk 18:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Clever. I suppose that's my evening task for one particularly boring day, then. :) Sam Vimes 18:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

anyways, I know this has been asked before, but didn't see any good answers to it. Why not at least moving this and related articles to Cricket:Warwickshire v Kent 1 May 2005 or something else, away from the main namespace? --Lacrymology 05:13:22, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

Cricket:Warwickshire v Kent 1 May 2005 would be in the main namespace. They were earlier at [[2005 English cricket season/Warwickshire v Kent 1 May 2005]] and the like, but was changed after discussions. On a more general point, if the articles are to be picked up correctly by mirror sites they need to be either in the namespace or the templatespace and as they contain text, templatespace is inappropriate, jguk 06:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)