Talk:New Zealand cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2005

Page location

I have moved the page back to New Zealanders in Zimbabwe in 2005 to avoid massive inconsistency with other Wikipedia cricket season and tour reviews. 'New Zealand cricketers in Zimbabwe in 2005' might conceivably be a more appropriate title (although the title as-is is in line with normal cricket nomenclature) but if we move one we should move them all -- should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. --Ngb 21:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Not so. Wikipedia strives for disambiguous headings, and Wikipedia surely sets the standard, not a specific sport. It is obvious that New Zealanders in Zimbabwe in 2005 can refer to every single New Zealander in that country, not just cricket players. Had you let me finish the redirects you would have seen that in the cricket reports/articles it would have displayed as New Zealand v. Zimbabwe (example) but linked to New Zealand cricketers in Zimbabwe which is precisely what the article is about -- cricketers visiting a country, not tourists visiting a country. Moriori 21:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the ambiguity is why I say above that "'New Zealand cricketers in Zimbabwe in 2005' might conceivably be a more appropriate title" -- but as this would affect a large chunk of articles, the change should be discussed at the WikiProject to ensure consistency of titling. I suggest you raise the issue there. --Ngb 21:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Have to agree with Ngb here. There is England in Australia in 2002-3, Australians in England in 2005, Pakistanis in West Indies in 2005 and West Indians in Sri Lanka in 2005 to move - and that's just off the top of my head. This unilateral move creates an internal inconsistency within Wikipedia Sam Vimes 22:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It depends what you want -- accurate, logical headings throughout Wikipedia, or one sport insisting on a right to use illogical, inaccurate headings and retain them ONLY because they are consistent with other inacccurate headings in articles pertaining to that sport. Incidentaly, my move caused a name change for ONE article only. All of the linked articles would display exactly as they do now. How about you let me start again and finish what I was doing, and then we can discuss it again? Moriori 22:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

No need to get annoyed. Most of us (apart from jguk) concede that you've got a point, and will help out with moving the pages if that's what consensus dictates. However, right now the naming policy for the other articles suggests that the article stays here. Sam Vimes 22:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing to disambiguate - and the style of "New Zealanders in Zimbabwe in 2005" is consistent with Wisden too. Will revisit if there's ever anything to disambiguate, jguk 22:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. If you can state here that New Zealanders in Zimbabwe in 2005 can not refer to ALL New Zealanders in Zimbabwe and that is specifies CRICKETERS , then I'm out of here. I am not getting into an edit war because a sport believes it can insist on inaccurate headings in Wikipedia. I say again, references to various matches etc will display exactly as they do now, but will link to a page about cricketers which is accuractly titled, with the word cricketers in it because it is about cricketers. It is about specific sports people from a particular country, not people from a cerrtain country. Moriori 22:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Excluding the New Zealand High Commission (if there is one), there's a fair chance it is all New Zealanders in Zimbabwe:) jguk 22:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Moriori on this. Wisden's practice is misleading as their publications are only about cricket. WIkipedia's wonderful scope makes this format misleading. Think of the situation from a non-cricket loving outsider's POV. The page titles are currently misleading for the reasons Moriori states and would be clearer if they were along the lines of New Zealand cricket tour to Zimababwe 2005. The title ought to make it clear what the article is about and the current practice does not. I think all the tour articles should be re-titled along these lines.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that we don't have a High COmmission in Zimbabwe at all.Lisiate 03:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Moriori, will you please stop getting needlessly uptight? You complain that 'my move caused a name change for ONE article only' -- this suggests you haven't actually understood why I reverted the move. Let me try to explain more simply. It's because there are lots of articles in Wikipedia titled with the form 'Xers in Y 2005'. If we make one of them 'X cricketers in Y in 2005' that introduces an inconsistency in titling, which is bad. I don't disagree that there is an ambiguity and that 'X cricketers in Y in 2005' might be a more appropriate title, as I said in my first note, if you had bothered to read it properly before getting upset, but my point is that if one article is going to be at 'X cricketers in Y in 2005' then they all should be. So instead of you just moving the New Zealanders article, the change should be discussed at WikiProject Cricket and *all* of the season/tour review articles should be moved, so that there is consistency. Please stop trying to interpret this as some kind of attack on you, please start trying to read and understand what the rest of us have written instead of overreacting. --Ngb 07:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You demonstrate the overreacting bit rather well. I have other bits to do, and really can't be bothered prolonging this debate, so you can do it your way. Unfortunately it isn't Wiki's way. Let me remind you of the following.

• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Be_precise_when_necessary. Convention: Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. Moriori 01:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• sigh* --Ngb 07:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity here and nothing to disambiguate. Who, other than a cricket fan who knows about these articles, is going to type "New Zealanders in Zimbabwe in 2005" into the search box? The articles can only be found from cricket-related articles and categories that make it clear that it is a cricket tour being written about. So to answer Moriori's points - nothing more is necessary, and the title is not ambiguous when looked at in context, jguk 07:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)