Talk:Australian cricket team in South Africa in 1993–94

There is no reason for a standalone stub of an article like this. As per WP's guidelines on when to split off articles, the target article is not developed enough to warrant a split of a stub like this. The two or three standalone articles are much more developed. Even then, they could probably be merged back into the target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Seppo. 1) You know nothing about cricket. 2) Every single Test-playing Tour since Test cricket started in 1997 has its own page. The first post-apartheid tours to South Africa in the 90s should not be the sole exception on Wikipedia, which at the moment they are. Do not edit war, leave these stubs as they are, and I intend to fill them with relevant information when I get the chance. Marplesmustgo (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Your use of derogatory term is duly noted. WP:OSE is a weak argument. Develop the article first, as their is a valid target for such a poor stub of an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Marplesmustgo I'm moving this to draft as it lacks independent notability and significant coverage. You can take your time to develop the article there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

1) (Personal attack removed) 2) Every - but every - Test cricket tour since 1877 has a page on this site even if it is a stub, with the sole exception of 90s/early 00s tours to South Africa. There is no reason to blank these out and these alone. 3) Many of the pages on Test tours here provide potted scores with no context. I have provided potted scores and some context, pending being able to fill them out further. You should not move these pages to draft when there are weaker articles on other and more recent Test tours here. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Marplesmustgo You need to get approval from WP:CRICKET as to what level of notability these stub articles can be created and what sources are sufficient to keep them there. Show me the discussion where it's okay to go forward. Because as they stand now, these stubs are only referencing to a single archive source or NO SOURCES AT ALL and do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT so as a new article they won't last. At least placing them in Draft will give you time to find those sources and present a decent article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Show me the discussion on WP:CRICKET where they say that "every Test cricket tour since 1877" should have a page here and a separate page for each season and team. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: @Marplesmustgo: @Onel5969: Given the nature of WP:CRICKET I find it difficult to believe that that discussion hasn't been had - probably a long time ago. I shall look for it. I am a little surprised that the issue of notability wasn't taken there first actually.

In terms of notability, the online bit of the 1995 edition of Wisden (which can be found here) has a report on each international tour to have taken place during the 93/94 and 94 seasons. This tour is amongst them. It has a detailed report of the tour as well as reports on each of the Test matches and of the 50 over series between the two teams and New Zealand. I find it impossible to believe that more detailed reporting would not exist in newspaper sources - not ones that will be easy to find online, but Test matches produce many press reports and the series would almost certainly have been broadcast on TV and radio as well.

I tend to think that there are too many cricket articles on wikipedia. This really isn't one of them. It, like so many other articles, need improving. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Can I just check that anyone actually read my points above? A simple yes/no will do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: AngusWOOF, there is absolutely no discussion to be had. Even before I came to look up Test match scores for this site, about eight months ago, absolutely every Test tour since 1877 (with the 90s/00s SA exceptions) had a Wikipedia page. I did not create them, they were there. I don't know if WP:CRICKET approved them or explicitly said "every Tour should have a page" - those pages are already here. Every Test tour is notable in itself, just as every Austrian election or every rugby union tour is notable.

And, of course, your comment that there should be "a separate page for each season and team" indicates you don't actually have any understanding of cricket. There is, for example, no page for the 1978 Ashes, because the Ashes were not contested in 1978. I suspect you have no idea what that even means.

These stubs do not only source one reference. Every SA tour in the 90s could source CricketArchive, Cricinfo, Wisden's Almanack, and other sources if you need me to give them.

(Personal attack removed) Marplesmustgo (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It is up to WP:CRICKET to structure these split articles and to determine at what level they can be sourced. Again, you haven't pointed to anything in the project that says these are the guidelines and that these are acceptable to create based on them. Instead, you are attacking myself WP:PERSONAL; I strongly suggest you remove those comments. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

For comparison

Before you condemn this (Australia in South Africa, 93-94) as a stub that can be deleted, compare with the same year with the same sides (South Africa in Australia, 93-94) which I have not touched: South African cricket team in Australia in 1993–94

They are of about the same calibre; the answer is to improve both, not delete one. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft done?

I think this is now worked up about as far as I'm going to get it without either getting in to some newspaper archives (unlikely) or getting hold of one of the books written on the tour (quite unlikely on the whole). I've never used the draft process before so I have no idea what to do now. I assume someone needs to press the button at the top of the page and then wait?

I'm not around at all now for a couple of days - off watching cricket as it happens - so if someone could do that (assuming it's the the thing to do) then that'd be great (@Onel5969:, @AngusWOOF: perhaps?). The page it needs to link from, History of cricket in South Africa from 1990–91 to 2000, is fully locked so it won't be possible to link it for a few days yet - unless someone could do us a favour and either unblock it for auto confirmed editors or arrange for suitable text to be inserted (@Oshwah: perhaps? - the offending user is blocked for five days and if we protect it for IPs then surely we should be OK?).

I appreciate that there is a problem with many, many cricket articles - including tour articles. This is an example of what can be done with a tour article - even without having access to decent sourcing. Of the ones on the History of cricket in South Africa from 1990–91 to 2000 page I would suggest that almost all can be developed in a similar way - the New Zealand tour (for drugs related reasons...) and the West Indies tour are probably the most notable of all - I"m actually slightly surprised that the West Indies one has never been worked up properly before considering the political aspects behind the apartheid boycott and the role WI played in it. Some of the smaller tours may be less notable, but I think it would be possible to do at least a reasonable job on them given time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to let the protection run its course, and then I'll push this through. It's a lot better than what was originally placed there and it has multiple secondary sources, not just the single archive. Feel free to work on the other ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I may try the Zimbabwe one and try and track down the Kenyan one - just to see if they're possible to develop or not. To be honest, I'm not a fan of the History of cricket in South Africa from 1990–91 to 2000 article at all - the end cut off is kinda arbitrary. I may have to have a think about that - if I ever get the time to do so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The book The Greatest by Malcolm Knox might help with this. It should be available in libraries in Australia, so someone in Australia could help with this. Unfortunately, I won't be in Australia in the near future. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

How curious

I was banned from this site for a week for insisting this page should be created, and yet, here it is, created and expanded. Those who insisted otherwise, I daresay, know sod all about cricket and are ignorant swine who then objected to me characterising them as ignorant swine. Marplesmustgo (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I seem to recall you were banned for edit warring and following a number of unnecessary personal attacks. If you've learned from that ban then fine, but comments such as the above really don't suggest you have. As the relevant pages show, I tend to agree that tours such as this probably deserve a page. As my work on this article demonstrates, it's reasonably easy to find decent sources for this sort of tour in this sort of time frame. The difference is that I used them to work up an article that actually deals with the tour rather than simply create a statistical page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"Editorial" decision

I'd be interested to find out when the consensus decision was made not to use the Cricket team template in this article, as I have been informed an "editorial decision" has been taken not to use it. Was there such a consensus reached? If so, please direct me to it. And, presumably that means there is a consensus to change every single tour page featuring the same template? Again, point me in the direction of it. Hammersfan (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. There's no requirement to use flags and templates, just as there's no requirement not to. There's no style guide for these articles and it's quite acceptable for articles to have differences in the ways that they present information.

A decision was made when this page was first written - you'll note that it differs in a number of ways from the majority of the tour page articles: for starters, it primarily uses prose rather than scorecards and tables and has many more sources than the majority of cricket tour articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)