Talk:The Ashes urn

Article title

This looks to be a well-researched article, but what an odd title, it sounds like a book. I can understand there being sufficient material on the urn for its own article (summarised as a section in The Ashes), but surely it should be called simply The Ashes Urn? --Jameboy (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: looks like the move to The Ashes urn has now been done. --Jameboy (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, but why the continual capitalisation of Urn throughout the body of the article? Is there any respectable authority for this fad, before I banish it back to lower case—as it regularly appears in all the mainstream print articles on the subject. Bjenks (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

About combining the articles

It does seem to me that quite a lot of information about the urn appears in the The Ashes article, and not always in this one. And there isn't very much in this article that isn't in the other article (and what there is, could be added to the other article without making it excessively long). And the two topics are in any case very much intertwined. What do others think about the possibility of combining the two articles? W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and see my comment on duplication here (Overdetailed content). For a newcomer to understand the subject from this collection of articles would be pretty heavy going. We now, er, also have the Women's Ashes in the mix! Bjenks (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, though I do think that the Women's Ashes should remain as a separate article, as although they brrowed the term "Ashes" from the men's game I see the women's competition as a distinct subject in its own right. JH (talk page) 08:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, because—as the great Betty Archdale herself pointed out—women's cricket should actually have nothing at all to do with the real Ashes. :) Bjenks (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Presenter

In the infobox, it says that the presenter of the award is the ICC. But I don't see that the ICC has anything to do with it. Since the Ashes urn was bequeathed to the MCC, surely they are the presenter. I was tempted to just go ahead and change it, but I thought I'd better canvass opinion first. JH (talk page) 08:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

In the infobox it states: "History - First award, 1882–83 - First winner, Australia"

I know the history comes from Australia winning the 1882 Test match, but if the first award was 1882-83 then surely the first winner was either England for winning in Australia in 1882-83 or England (again) for winning the first series immediately after the presentation of the urn to Ivo Bligh. I don't see how the first 'award' can be 1882-83 yet Australia the first winner. FieldOfWheat (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)