Talk:The Hundred (cricket)

Very poor article

OK, it's only about clown 'cricket', but Wiki still has (laughable) pretensions to be an 'encyclopedia'. There is a huge amount of verbatim repetition. And Trent Bridge is in NOTTINGHAM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not a 'new type of cricket'

It is not cricket at all. Read Simon Heffer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.129 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. At home we have the standard exchange: "What are you watching?", "Clown cricket", "So not cricket". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 100-ball cricket

Both about the same thing, only 100-ball cricket tournament is The Hundred, so articles are duplicates. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#100 over articles Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Which article will end up as the target? I'm not entirely sure which is the best for that, but I think I read about some club league which will be suing the format as well - perhaps in the Midlands? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose;The Hundred (cricket) is the event, 100-ball cricket is the type of cricket. These articles cannot merge. SethWhales ^talk 21:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support merging 100-ball cricket into The Hundred (cricket). There is currently only one 100-ball format, and the topic is adequately covered at The Hundred (cricket). The 100-ball cricket article was justified when we didn't know what the name of the competition would be, but now that The Hundred (cricket) exists, there is no purpose to the 100-ball cricket article. It merely duplicates info that already exists elsewhere. – PeeJay 10:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC).

Sorry but the statement "There is currently only one 100-ball format," is incorrect "Warwickshire Sunday Smash: Midlands to launch new 100-ball club competition" See https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/46275891. There is also the Swancote Energy Smash in Shropshire.SethWhales ^talk 21:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, this has been hanging around for the best part of six months (why not a hundred months, ho ho...), so I've been WP:BOLD and merged them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Reactions Section

Having seen via Twitter that ALL criticism had been removed from this page last night, I have restored the reactions section to maintain the article's neutrality. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Support Definitely agree with this - the section with the critical comments isn't perfect, but so much the discussion in mainstream publications (Cricinfo, Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, etc) has been mixed-to-negative. I don't see how the article could meet a reasonable NPOV without some of this PeteinEdinburgh (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Format

Where are the playing conditions in case of a Tie. I don't see any in this link https://www.thehundred.com/info/competition-rules Would it be a 5 ball super over, or traditional 6 ball super over, or 10 ball super over with option of changing bowler after 5 balls ? J mareeswaran (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Here is an explainer from the Cricketer magazine https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/thehundred/the_hundred_playing_conditions_for_dummies.html

J mareeswaran (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Oval-Invincibles-Logo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKay (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

---

The Hundred (cricket) → The Hundred – Procedural filing based on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 9 § The Hundred.

Grvlx100 says there (bracketed insertion for clarity):

There is only one reason anyone would spell out and search the phrase 'The Hundred' on Wikipedia and that's for the cricket competition. The other pages [at The 100] all involve the number and it feels that the redirect is unnecessary.

Pinging:

• Joseph2302, who !voted keep at RfD with comment

  Most of the links at The 100 are valid for being spelt out- causal reader wouldn't know if they're spelt as 100 or Hundred in the name. I don't believe that most people will be looking for the "cricket" tournament.

  , which I think should be read as a keep in this context as well
• Jay, who !voted (in the context of the redirect)

  Disambig with entries The 100 (TV series), The Hundred (cricket) (and probably The One Hundred (band)) with cricket as primary.

• Darorcilmir, whose comment there I read as supporting a move:

  Agree that The Hundred now refers only to the cricket competition and nothing else - because nothing else uses this specific formatting. It therefore needs its own main entry, with all other instances listed on disambig page, and a hatnote on the main page.

• Zerosumnet and Mdewman6, who commented but did not !vote.

I've not yet made my mind up on where I stand personally. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as I stated at the RFD, I don't believe the "cricket" tournament is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Perfectly valid for users to search The Hundred when they want something named The 100 e.g. the TV series. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Definitely not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Cricket has been notified of this discussion.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Metal has been notified of this discussion.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Comics has been notified of this discussion.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose too soon. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and the sooner the format is consigned to the bin the better! StickyWicket (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First class

Does the 100 count as a first class match? Do the stats get added to a players t20 stats? Or is it non-first class? The article doesn’t seem to say. If it can be cited perhaps it should mention it? 2A02:C7F:2C68:D500:7446:9853:5A57:2FF (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

List of centuries

Will Jacks scored 108* vs Southern Brave on 14 August 2022. Can someone add this to the list? 2A00:23C6:AA85:D201:84D0:C550:1106:A643 (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You're quite right, he did. Could've sworn there was only 1 century on the list when I built the table yesterday. Weird. Thanks for the head's up. MsJoat (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Records and statistics

Rather than getting into an edit war over tables, I figure it's better to have a civil discussion in here. @Blue Square Thing, it would appear you regard any stats other than the very basics on this page to be cruft, am I understanding that right?

However, what we have now are bare bones numbers that lack context - they're simply a name and a number. I'm willing to concede that I may have gone a little overboard on a few of them. A more moderate version of the batting table would therefore be:

! Runs !! Player !! Innings !! High Score !! 50+ !! Teams

That way we restore some of the context without overpopulating the table and take the same approach to the others - enough to provide context, not so much as to be overwhelming. I'm happy to lose the fielding tables and the Wins and Runners Up tables.

I do take some issue with your assertion that the women's tables are WP:OR. Per that policy WP:CALC is not original research - it's simple arithmetic. However, I will be more cautious in future and include <!-- 2021:###, 2022:###, 2023:###, Sum:### --> to avoid any doubt. Hopefully in future the stats sites will pull their heads out of their backsides and give us a proper tournament page like the men's rather than simply year by year stats.

You removed the colour flashes on the grounds of accessibility. However, reading through WP:DTT, MOS:COLOR and MOS:COLOURS, I'm really struggling to see how they hinder accessibility. The colour provides no additional information - that's given as the name of the team. It's not the text background so isn't a contrast issue. It's a cell empty of data so shouldn't hamper screen readers. I can't even find anything in WP:USE that would discourage it. For me, simple colour flashes like these improve readability and accessibility when reading tables (I'm pretty sure there's a term for it in UI design but I can't remember it off the top of my head). MsJoat (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

ETA: The page before BST's changes. MsJoat (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello. My initial thoughts - this is rushed and I won't have time add very much detail:

• • The colour flashes are impossible for some readers to "read" - either due to colour blindness related issues or using a screen reader. They add pretty colours and no meaning yet complicated the tables. They're absolutely unnecessary for the meaning we're looking for;
  • The OR issue is a real problem - surely this information is somewhere else (CricketArchive perhaps)? It relates too...
  • NOTSTATS - what we have here are tables copied from CricInfo. We don't need the extra "context" - and it's not really context in my view, it's numbers that make it **harder** to pick out the stats involved. The ways the page has been reorganised by Ânes-pur-sàng really help and would be impossible to do with wider tables. NOTSTATS has led to us losing many whole articles and sections of articles - in particular tables without prose to place them in context (per CRICSTYLE). What we have here are tables without prose to put them in context...
    • Honestly, the extra columns will make this worse, not better, in this article
    • If you want context, add a short prose summary each time. This is easier to do and actually adds context
  • If you want a set of more complex tables, we'll need an article along the lines of of List of Indian Premier League records and statistics. That article has a number of issues, some of which I've begun to address, but is the appropriate place to place the sort of detail you're talking about - compare it with Indian Premier League#Records and statistics which has a short table (rather too long for my taste, but I'll live with it). IPL articles tend to get overblown for lots of different reasons. Of, for similar articles, see List of Big Bash League records and statistics, List of Pakistan Super League records and statistics, List of Bangladesh Premier League records and statistics etc... That sort of article is a much better place for the sort of detail you're trying to add here. I wouldn't go for the full stats dump - and I'm not entirely certain that those articles would survive AfD if I'm totally honest, but something along those lines is more appropriate a place to add this sort of thing

I'm sure there are other things I'd want to say on this, but that will do for now. I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others and there's an argument for taking some of the stylists things here to the Cricket wiki project and the related sub projects to see if we can get some sort of wider agreement. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I largely agree with BST. The colour flashes are purely decorative and serve no purpose (MOS:DECOR probably best covers this). If stats cannot be reliably sourced, we have no business producing them ourselves. Sports articles attract a plethora of statistics, most of them utterly useless; we should only reproduce those that are widely published in reliable sources and they should always be kept to a minimum. Often, they also need to be accompanied by prose to provide context (e.g. cover the history/evolution of records). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with BST. Desertarun (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Related issues

There are some related issues, mainly to do with colour and formatting:

• I worked on the Birmingham Phoenix page as an example of the sorts of things that could be done:
  • plain flags need replacing with cr templates to add the national team name - so, for example, Trent Rockets or articles such as 2021 Northern Superchargers season need this. It's not too hard to do, but it's an example of the sort of issue that appears in random places in cricket articles. There are all sorts of reasons why bare flags are a bad idea - MOS:FLAGS basically covers them;
  • there are lots of flags in infoboxes which should probably be removed as well under MOS:INFOBOXFLAG;
  • I worked on the Birmingham Phoenix#Seasons section and then OLLSZCZ, who has done lots of work on Hundered articles has made some improvements - we discussed some stuff on their talk page which is related to colour. My view is certainly that colours in tables like the ones in the seasons section can be really difficult and I think we came to an agreement on this - I certainly think that OLLSZCZ's work on the tables after my initial efforts has improved them;
    • although we'll want some prose in these sections eventually;
  • as a result of that discussion OLLSZCZ brought up the colours in the table headers for the squads. This is something that I have a really difficult relationship with and generally think are a bad thing - the same sort of decorative colours issue as above. So I removed them; Rugbyfan22 reverted that with the suggestion that these need a general discussion first, which is fair enough;
    • personally I'd like to see colours removed from squad tables as they have a tendency to lead to edit wars, distract from the content and can cause all sorts of accessibility issues. This can carry over into nav box colours as well and all sorts of consistency problems;
• The honours section doesn't seem to fit on pages like Welsh Fire who haven't gotten close to winning anything. The placement of the honours section has been an issue for years - football ones appear towards the bottom of the page because there's an effective style guide for football team articles.

I'd only worked on the Birmingham page I think, so hadn't had a chance to get to other things. It's not too much work to roll the same sorts of things out, but I'm interested to see what other people think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no issues with any of these changes, I'd just prefer them to be rolled out universally for all the teams, so there is consistency between the articles. Some articles have been edited with some of these changes, while some haven't been updated properly since 2020 and still have a lot of out of date waffle from before the tournament started and some have images of grounds that, because of COVID, the sides will never play at, so a big update of these is probably due if there is interest from others. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the captaincy sections from the articles also, as I think they're undue and don't give any real information to the reader, given the lack of history of the sides, and because they're all unsourced. Would prefer prose somewhere in the article if at all. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be possible to add a quick sentence on three to the lead - The men's team is coached by XXX and captained by YYY. That sort of thing is fairly standard and there's a chance we can keep it vaguely up to date and avoid the random changes that get made in some leagues. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Birmingham Phoenix, London Spirit, Manchester Originals, Northern Superchargers, Oval Invincibles, Southern Brave, Trent Rockets, and Welsh Fire have all been updated to the current standards agreed upon. OLLSZCZ (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. We probably need to add prose to the colour boxes in the infobox as well? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I've done some work on the 2021 Birmingham Phoenix season article this morning to test the sorts of things I might do with those articles - compare with 2022 Birmingham Phoenix season. I've documented this in edit summaries mainly, but I've also moved to collapsible versions of the scorecards. We don't have to do this, but it does use up rather less space on the page. I'd appreciate thoughts on this before I do any work on any of the other articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'll go ahead with the flags and colour flash removals and the sorts of changes that OLLSZCZ and I have discussed elsewhere over the next few days. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good with me. I'll be updating all of the teams statistics in the coming days so they're all up to date. After that I'll help you out with the formatting of the teams season pages. OLLSZCZ (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Order of teams

There seems to be a general view that we go women and then men when we're ordering things, yes? I'm trying to apply that every time I roll something out, but it's worth checking that that's OK with people I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is because the women's matches are always scheduled before the men's ones. That way, it's chronological to how the tournament happens. (I also like this because it makes the women feel less like an afterthought to the men ones.) MsJoat (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think when I added the squads back in 2020, I added the male squad first, as they were named in advance of the women's squads, and with M coming before W in the alphabet, left them as that. I have no issues if they are swapped around though, as long as it's done on all the articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

My thought was that the impact on the women's game has clearly been much more significant. There's also an argument that we should put the women's teams first because this is just about the only competition held like this - the Super Smash is similar, but those are the established six provincial sides so they're kept separate for men and women - so we should do it because we can. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Then let's swap them and have the women's info first as standard. MsJoat (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

In general that's what I've been doing whenever I've significantly edited something I think. Although I may have missed something. Better wait a week or so and see if there's any further input from people. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Highest/Lowest Balls

Having the two tables in columns alongside each other makes total sense. Unfortunately, the info about how many balls they scored off is now squished and awkward to read. Obvious solutions would be: a) get rid of the table columns entirely, b) add an additional column in each table for the number of balls or c) get rid of the number of balls entirely. I favour option b but I'm not going to change it without input. MsJoat (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what will work best. On a wide monitor removing the 30em width thing sorts the problem, but that doesn't help in mobile view. Worth experimenting with the other options and see what looks best. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The benefit of the style="max-width:30em;" is that it means the two tables aren't abutting right up against each which makes readability easier. The with of the column in the table could be forcibly set but I'd rather avoid it. MsJoat (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, checking back through the history, it was an issue before I added the max-width (laptop screen and mobile).MsJoat (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally I prefer not to do anything with column widths at all - it often seems to ignore the fact that width of people's screens varies massively - and can force full width tables which generally aren't helpful. I also prefer simple table syntax in general. Fwiw on my not overly wide desktop screen it makes a difference when I have a reasonable window size - full screen it certainly does and it only causes the abutting issue when I get to maybe 70% of my screen width - at which point the balls start to wrap. Personally I don't mind the abutting - we could always drop the tables back to one above the other perhaps? I don't have an issue with that with these - the two cols work fine for the career runs and career wickets. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Champions table

Hello AlfieLavender, as you can see we've been having quite an active conversation on tables on this page. Personally, I love tables and think they can be helpful in communicating information. But, in the case of your champions table, I'm inclined to agree with Blue Square Thing on this. I find it difficult to read and there's more information than is necessary for a tournament with only three instances. There are ways to improve it to make it more readable and fit with the consensus we've reached here - i.e. no colour flashes, women's records first - but I'm not sure it's worth it for something that can be summarised with text. I'd be inclined to instead make a section called === Performance by team === and break it down that way. MsJoat (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to be tetchy, but as far as I see it, the page you have decided to fix is less informative, intuitive and visually appealing to those visiting this page before your intervention. Removal of the table and colour coding is seemingly an exercise for literally no benefit. Remember this is a visual break down of said information and colour has an important role to many people when learning, even if you do not personally view it that way. If you'd prefer the table to state women's competitions first to work with the layout already in place, then I have no objections, however as to your point of it stating more information than is necessary, I politely disagree, this is all relevant in sporting competitions such as The Hundred. If you have a more appropriate way of detailing a table that states this information in a way you'd prefer, I'm open to your input, but as far as I can tell the information is fully legible and will only come into more prominence the older the competition becomes; even if you delete it now, it'll only be created down the line by someone else, so why remove it? It benefits nobody. AlfieLavender (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

My original iteration of this section (linked above) had a set of tables for this and I've already stated I like the colours for exactly the reason you've said. But the other users disagreed with me and the current form of the tables were decided upon. Edit wars help no one so I conceded and we have the tables we have have now.

A more readable version of your table might read something like this version I just made. My background is in coding and we're taught to future proof our work - that's not the case here and something I've had to unlearn for Wikipedia. A table this size for this info is probably WP:Too soon. If the tournament continues on as is then, maybe in 2025, it will be necessary. MsJoat (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I'd have trouble understanding that table tbh with you MsJoat. One of the issues we have is that we're trying to deal with both men's and women's tournaments here, which I don't think happens anywhere else as far as I can tell - I'm yet to come across a league in any sport that does that.

I'd have thought a table such as the one at Pakistan Super League#Team results and/or Pakistan Super League#Champions should summarise things shouldn't they? These are similar to the sorts of tables used at Indian Premier League#Teams' performances and the section above that - which is probably where they were originally copied from. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're interested in making the page visually appearing, selected images would probably be a good idea. Someone must have taken some that can be uploaded or there will be copyright free ones out there, surely?

In terms of colour, it's massively distracting from the key information imo. What this articles needs is a proper structure and then prose, with images and tables as appropriate. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

A rather simpler version - still not entirely happy with it:

Team	Winners (W/M)	Runners up (W/M)	Women's titles	Men's titles
Oval Invincibles	3 (2/1)	0	2021, 2022	2023
Southern Brave	2 (1/1)	2 (2/0)	2023	2021
Trent Rockets	1 (0/1)	0	–	2022
Manchester Originals	0	2 (0/2)	–	–
Northern Superchargers	0	1 (1/0)	–	–
Birmingham Phoenix	0	1 (0/1)	–	–
London Spirit	0	0	–	–
Welsh Fire	0	0	–	–

Lowest totals table

There are a couple of instances in the lowest totals table where the innings ended because the side chasing won the match, so that both innings from the same match are shown - surely these shouldn't be counted as a "low total"? I'd say that lowest totals should only be included where a team was dimissed or used up their allotted overs. Any thoughts? Bcp67 (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll remove the successful run cases. MsJoat (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps add a note about the other ones or to explain the omissions? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. And a short para at the start eliminates excessive efns. MsJoat (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Is the Team the one who scored the low total or the winner of the match? In the Women's 2021 final Oval won, with Southern scoring 73, I see in the table Oval is the Team and Southern the opponent. Yet in 2023 Oval scored the 80 and is the Team column. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the team that made the score. Pretty sure that's a mistake and one I made - I probably input it wrong. Thank you for picking up on it and pointing it out. MsJoat (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)