Talk:International cricket in 2015–16

What to include here

There seems to be a recent bloat to this article. Maybe we can reach a consensus on what should/should not be included. So far we have:

1. Men's Test, ODI and T20I (inc. minor tours and tournaments)
2. Women's Test, ODI and T20I (inc. minor tours and tournaments)
3. Men's first-class/List A tours by Associate nations (Intercontinental Cup and World Cricket League)
4. A team tours
5. Youth tours/tournaments (inc. U-19)

I think the first three go without saying, although I'd have no issue with the women's fixtures being split out into their own page, as they're growing all the time (which is good). The issue is around the last two on the list. Should they be included? Pinging some prolific editors of this page: @Arjunsanyal:, @Ankurc.17:, @Gihan Jayaweera:, @Sidhant99:, @TheLabRats:, @Srinivasprabhu933:. I'll also alert the Cricket Project too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Youth tours should be included as it represents the highest level of cricket for that age. A team is debatable because it's the second tier, but I can understand the reasons for its inclusion

Above comment by Arjunsanyal (for clarity)

Well, I was going to suggest that obviously the first three could use a section each, with sub-sections for each of the major tours at least and a prose summary for others if necessary. And probably a section (with link to the main article of course) for any international competition. And then that a brief prose summary of youth and A team stuff would be handy. And then I looked at the article and realised that it's not actually an article at all but simply a set of tables which I flicked over without reading - as I imagine many users might do so. Frankly it looks disastrous to my eye as it is, but without prose you may as well allow people to add whatever table, in whatever format, they want - simply on the grounds that that's what will happen anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My personal opinion is yes, yes, yes, no, no (with possible exception for the U-19 World Cup).

Don't think there's an argument that 1,2 & 3 should be there- all first-class/List A fixtures.

I don't see A team's fixtures as notable, as there's little coverage of them, and it's all run of the mill. Same for U-19 fixtures. U-19 World Cup gets slightly more coverage, which is why it may be notable enough to add. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is A team performances and youth ODIs also need some attention. But, before the stats, the pages of youth cricket and A teams should be advanced. This is because that, most of the international players have played their early years in youth games and A teams. So, when those articles become advanced, then other pages will be easier to handle. There is some another aspect. I don't think so, that all youth and A team fixtures are available for us. There may be some difficulties to find that. If we are going to make articles of them, we need to know it's past results, let's say back to 1970s. So, it is up to all cricket fans to make them better and easier. Cheers.. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 9:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

All five from my side, because the reasons being the same mentioned by Gihan Jayaweera. But I will like to add that, when we say it is difficult it means that it is possible. So we can start with current tours and slowly move back in history, say till 1970 if you want. srini (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think you'd be better off starting from the other end - the 1800s is a splendid place to start. To draw an arbitrary line at 1970 would be silly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: true, but it is difficult to trace records if you don't know where to start from. The earliest A Team tour in my knowledge is the Australian cricket team in Ceylon and India in 1935–36. Next was 30 years later made by Pakistan A in Sri Lanka (Ceylon). I don't think there are more than 10 tours in 190 years span(1800 - 1990). So lot of man-hours are required to be spent on 25 years after that. srini (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding 'A' team tours, while I have no strong position regarding whether they should be included on the page, it is clearly incorrect for "England Lions vs Pakistan A" to be listed where it is - all the other series in that section consist of full ODI/T20Is (as stated by the table heading), whereas these games are "unofficial" ODI/T20Is, so they are not full internationals. Really, this series should be a "neutral venue minor tour", or something similar. ultros8 13:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think minor youth and A tours could be left out. Only multi-nation tournaments like U-19 World Cup and Tri-Nation tournaments should be included. Also, the bloat on the page could be reduced if we include tours only after they have been confirmed by reliable sources i.e. the national boards of the teams or Cricinfo. Sidhant99 (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no point in including A tours. The page headlien is International Cricket... So how can A tours form part of it... NOw i understand associate nations are included on the page but still they are National Cricket teams and not a 2nd level team. (Ankur.c)