Jump to content

Talk:2006–07 Ashes series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Odds and squads

[edit]

The odds description does not seem objective to me, "despite wide-spread interest ... Australia are clear favourites". Also, shouldn't the Australian squad be listed, not just the English one. Jpag99 21:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the Aussie squad yet? I don't think they've announced their twelve, in which case it'd be speculation. Agree on the odds description though. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Aussies haven't announced a twelve yet. As the home team they will have the luxury of doing it on a match by match basis. Ollie 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The odds listed here are unverifiable, I checked the reference. They seem dubious to me, Australia were 1/3 for a series victory?

Umpires

[edit]

Does anyone know who is umpiring the series? After all the umpires were a crucial factor last time... Night Bringer 11:51, 19 November 2006 (GMT +10)

Umpires for the series will be Billy Bowden, Steve Bucknor, Rudi Koertzen and Aleem Dar, although I don't know in what combinations or for which matches. Match referees will be Jeff Crowe (first three) and Ranjan Madugalle (last two). Ollie 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blast... well if Dar and Koertzen are umpiring as a pair for three of the tests they might as well just say 'England keeps the ashes' after all they seem to have something against Australia (or at least when the Australians are bowling they don't give too many appeals...Night Bringer 20:52, 21 November 2006 (GMT +10)

NSW Warm-up game first class?

[edit]

Slightly OT, but the game against NSW surely cannot have first-class status, can it? Even though Cricinfo doesn't make mention of it --I like pants 05:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the game didn't have first-class status as you suspect, due to there being fourteen players per side. In recent years, England have seemed to prefer match time for extra players over first-class status in at least one of their tour warm-up games. Ollie 09:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]

Well, the moment is nearly upon us... Is there any accepted process for updating match progress? Should we wait for the end of a session or end of a day, do we update when we feel like it, at key moments, or strive to keep as up to date as possible (within reason of course)? Ollie 23:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It's impossible to control. Just revert if scores are wrong, maybe keep it in a template like this (the {{First Class Matches}} only works properly when matches are finished), and let people edit to their heart's content. Most of the time it's right. Sam Vimes | Address me 23:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Australia 0/0 & Australia lead by 0 runs with 10 wickets in hand[1]



Brisbane Cricket Ground, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, Australia
Umpires: BF Bowden (NZ) and SA Bucknor (WI)
Man of the Match:

England &
The score should be written in the format Wicket/Runs, as per the way Australians write the score.--HamedogTalk|@ 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 1st Test: Australia v England at Brisbane, Nov 23-27 2005, scorecard from Cricinfo, retrieved 23 November 2006

Scoring

[edit]

I guess the issue is that Nine Network who are the official broadcaster of this series display the score and verbally say "(wickets) /for (score)" where as Fox Sports and others do score/wickets.--Mikecraig 00:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the convention on Wikipedia is to use the language of the subject, which in this case is Australian English. Australians write the score with wickets / score, so we should be writing it that way.--HamedogTalk|@ 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject's just as much England as it is Australia? HornetMike 03:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Played in Australia though.--HamedogTalk|@ 03:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's an England-Australia game. That's the subject, not the place it's played at. HornetMike 03:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the convention according to WP:CRICKET?--HamedogTalk|@ 04:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Team score format: Adopt the consensus style of writing in the host country of the tournament, i.e. 1/141 or one for 141 for matches in Australia, and 141/1 or 141 for one for most other countries. Use slashes when shortening scores. The alternative view is that we should be consistent throughout all articles and use the style used in all countries other than Australia....nuff said eh? --Mikecraig 04:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we are using the Wicket / Run format? Fine. Why does those Australia do it the other way anyway?--HamedogTalk|@ 04:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question should be: why does the rest of the world do it the other way? ;) — Moondyne 04:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Australians do it differently because they are all upside down, so it looks normal to them. Or something. Ollie 20:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the South Africans and us Kiwi's don't follow the silly Aussies. Only the Australians do it the other way probably because they always think they're special so they want to be different... :-P Nil Einne 07:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are special. — Moondyne 14:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do declarations work in the Aussie format? The current 9dec/602 looks wrong to me, I would have said 9/602 dec. Do educate me! Ollie 20:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I think too, but maybe some real Aussies will wake up soon and tell us. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"9/602 dec" is fine. [1] — Moondyne 14:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article hierarchy

[edit]

I really disagree with the way this article is being structured. Can I suggest the following...

firstly have a heading for each test match. A subheading under each test match and in for the days. This article has the potential to turn up very bloated as I feel all information will be filled out under one heading.

The following article hierarchy will allow users such as myself to write day by day Synopsys. I feel that this is a much better structure for this article. If everyone agrees I am happy to make appropriate changes.

all of the subheadings are in boxes

sale of tickets

squads

tour matches

first test 

 day 1
 day 2 
 day 3
 day 4
 day 5

second test 

 day 1
 day 2 
 day 3
 day 4
 day 5

third test 

 day 1
 day 2 
 day 3
 day 4
 day 5

fourth test 

 day 1
 day 2 
 day 3
 day 4
 day 5

fifth test 

 day 1
 day 2 
 day 3
 day 4
 day 5

media coverage

--Stewartm82 10:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree. The PM IX and the 3 FC matches don't belong here. Suggest moving them to another article: English cricket team in Australia in 2006-07 which can capture these as well as an overview of the tour. And note also, that ODI series in Jan/Feb should be recorded in One-day Internationals in Australia in 2006-07. — Moondyne 12:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See template {{Australian cricket in 2006-07}}:
which should go at the bottom of each of these related articles — Moondyne 12:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New overview article English cricket team in Australia in 2006-07 created with details of the FC matches moved there. — Moondyne 08:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok great i will start moving this around this week. Once again if someone has a problem with this let me know but i feel that its for the best--Stewartm82 10:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes. Comments? --Stewartm82 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full Scorecards?

[edit]

I don't think this is really the place for a full scorecard for each match. I think Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information best sums up what I think of the matter. This article is going to end up long enough as it is, so I think we should be summarising as much as possible. The First Class Matches template does this well. What are others opinions? Ollie 13:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. This is the 1817th Test match. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i agree they are over the top. A text summery of the day is better. If people want the score cards they should go to crickinfo or something like that --Stewartm82 10:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, but it's been restored. I'll just say here that I'll remove it again soon per WP:NOT unless anyone on here gives me a compelling reason not to. HornetMike 09:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. I don't particularly want it. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I have been watching this article for a while and thought it was looking a bit cluttered. Might I also suggest that we remove "Day 1, Day 2" etc from the contents section - i.e. don't make them headings? Otherwise it is going to be very, very cluttered, with about 30-40 links in the contents. The 2005 Ashes series seems to do a pretty reasonable job, perhaps we could use that format? GreenGopher 10:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed these to match the 2005 article. I also placed the headings (as I have formatted them) as comments for the next four tests. Now anyone writing a summary for a day can simply uncomment the appropriate section. Ollie 13:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Urn

[edit]

I added a sentence about how the winning captain will be presented with a crystal urn rather than a replica of the urn. 02:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

England were presented with a glass/crystal trophy at the end of the 2005 Ashes - is this the same one or different? Also, I seem to remember there being a name for said trophy, but I might just be hallucinating. Ollie 11:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name is on The Ashes article page - Waterford crystal trophy.--HamedogTalk|@ 13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Section

[edit]

I have created the "Lead Up" section. The intro was starting to get too long. --Stewartm82 15:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance

[edit]

I don't know how to work it out, so just for a bit of information, someone could possibly add the attendances for the first test under where it has Man of the Match: Ricky Ponting. Here are the crowd figures from day 1-5 and then the total.

Day 1: 39,288. Day 2: 39,315. Day 3: 38,719. Day 4: 37,056. Day 5: 10,349. Total: 164,747.

05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how that template works sorry... GreenGopher 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no space in that template for attendance figures. I added the number to the fifth day summary instead. Ollie 13:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the total attendance at the end of day five for the second test. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.224.162.234 07:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
What about adding another column to the Venues table? Total Attendance? Or maybe a seperate section?
[edit]

Somebody reverted the contents section again. In my opinion, we really don't need to link to each and every individual day of the test match for all five tests, it creates a lot of clutter. That would make a very long contents section that is really unneccessary. I'll change it now, if someone has a problem with it then please leave a message GreenGopher 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would prefer a section break for each day rather than each match being the lowest level of sectioning. So what if the contents table gets a bit long? As the article gets longer, the contents becomes more and more used. Also, it makes it easier to watch the article for vandalism, as changes outside the current day should happen less often and therefore less scrutiny is needed if the current day section is edited. — Moondyne 01:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, point taken. I'm not overly fussed, so your way is fine. I have added back in the link to each day - I also gave "matches" it's own section to seperate it a bit, I think it makes it look a bit tidier. Feel free to edit it though. GreenGopher 01:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GreenGopher yea sorry i really disagree with you about the structure. If your worried about the TOC getting too long then just click the hide button.. thats what its there for. This artcle is simply the account of 5 test matches. Why would every match not have its own heading???? Thats my 2 cents anyway --220.237.166.156 12:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My issue was with every DAY having a heading, not every match. Of course every match should have a heading. I was just of the opinion that if every day had a heading, we could hav our contents section hitting 30 items.
But it's ok, I've been converted :D GreenGopher 04:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout section

[edit]

I added a new section, fallout, so I could mentione Martyn's retirement - it didn't seem to fit within the "second test" section. I also get the feeling there will be quite a few stories worth mentioning before the series end. I wasn't sure if that's the way to go about it though, where do we draw the line? It's almost tempting to have a "controversy" section, where we could mention the hype around Giles and the English selection process etc, but that could be detracting from the cricket itself... GreenGopher 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering a 'Fallout' or 'Aftermath' section for each Test. There certainly could be one for the Second, can't really remember what (if anything) was said after the First. I've also added a snippet about Martyn and his replacements to the Squads section. Ollie 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that to, I suppose theres never going to be much (except whispers) after just one test though, hence there was no real need. I suppose best bet at the moment is to just whack it all in the one section, and sort it out a bit better once the series is finished. The Panesar saga certainly deserves a mention somewhere, and probably the drama surrounding Freddies captaincy. GreenGopher 02:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've slightly reworded the sentence in the squads section and removed "fallouts" section. Squads sees to me the best place for this. —Moondyne 04:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to disagree there. Or more, I agree that the beforementioned retirement was able to be in the 'aquads' section, but there are now many more things that happened that deserve mentioned. eg Warned & McGrath retiring.

This article is supposed to be about the "Ashes series." In my humble opinion, it would not be a complete article without detailing some of the very important events that happened outside of the cricket field. GreenGopher 06:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

[edit]

Can the flags at the infobox be vertically aligned? --Howard the Duck 15:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it does anyone think they might be able to put a border around the England flag as the background is also white. toenail 06:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Image:Flag of England (bordered).svg. I have updated.--HamedogTalk|@ 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking up the article.

[edit]

This article is getting a bit too large for my liking. Would it be wise to create a separate article for each test match? They seem to take up about half the article at the moment. -- Qarnos 08:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unneccessary, I think. We're not an indiscrimate collection of information and I think individual articles on each match would become that. HornetMike 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

User:Mdmanser/Infobox cricket seriesSeeing as though this page is getting a lot of attention, I thought this would be a rather appropriate place to bring this up for discussion. The current infobox used for Test and ODI series does a rather good job and serves its purpose well, but it seems a little scrappy given the amount of things that carry over lines. As a potential replacement, I've come up with this one which has been blatantly ripped from the Military Conflict Infobox that has been rather successful. The good thing about this new one is that it can be used for tri-series as well as Test and ODI series. The only shortfall is that it can't be used to summarise complete tours that include both Test and ODI series just yet, although that can be very easily changed with a bit of work. What does everybody think of it? --mdmanser 08:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is great. Updating it to include tours would be an excellent decision. Manning 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. To summarise complete tours, perhaps you could make something similar to the military campaign boxes (eg. {{Campaignbox Ethiopian war in Somalia}}, base template = {{Campaign}}) - 52 Pickup 13:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates

[edit]

Warne is up for the news section of the main page after his 700th wicket - voice your thoughts at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates.--HamedogTalk|@ 06:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standardised formatting

[edit]

Despite being Australian myself, shouldn't this article be reformatted to conform to the standard method of cricket notation? Currently it uses the "wickets/runs" notation which (to the best of my knowledge) is unique to Australia. I'm assuming there must be a wikiproject somewhere for cricket (although haven't found it yet) which lays out the guidelines for formatting and scoring. Manning 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manning, indeed there is such a project - see WP:CRIC and general discussion of Wikipedia/cricket related issues at WT:CRIC. Feel free to sign up on the participants page. An active cricket quiz is always happening at WP:CRIQ also - all are welcome to join in.
WRT your question regarding scoring notation, there is a style guideline at WP:CRIC which basically says this issue is unresolved (but my preference and the de facto convention is that matches played in Australia should use Australian notation). The talk page there would be the place to discuss this further if you wish to do so. —Moondyne 07:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least I have tried to keep in consistent throughout the article. So whatever the style it's started off with, I stick with it. Also, I have used the Citation templates to cite all the web sites so that the format in reference section is consistent. It would be good if we can stick with it from now on. --Cyktsui 13:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Records Section

[edit]

In keeping with the 2005 layout, I'm setting up a records section. I've cut and pasted the code from the 05 Series below, and will update it when I have time (going out now) unless someone else does it first. Manning 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 records - need updating to 06-07, then cut and paste to main article.

==Records==
===Individual Records===
Most Runs Kevin Pietersen 473 Runs
Most Wickets Shane Warne 40 Wickets
Most Catches (Excluding Wicket Keepers) Matthew Hayden 10 Catches
Highest Individual Innings Michael Vaughan 166
Best Innings Bowling Shane Warne 6/48
Highest Match Total Michael Vaughan 180
Best Match Bowling Shane Warne 12/246
===Team records===
Best Innings England 477
Worst Innings England 155
Tosses Won England 3-2
===Other Records===
  • Shane Warne became the all time leading wicket taker in The Ashes series having taken a total of 172.
    • He also passed the 600 wicket mark having 623 by the end of the series.
  • Glenn McGrath passed the 500 wicket milestone ending up with 518.
  • Andrew Flintoff became the first Englishman to claim over 20 wickets and 400 runs (24 wickets and 402 runs) in a series.


Good idea. I'm not sure about "best" and "worst innings" descriptors though. Perhaps "highest innings" and "lowest innings". Also, there were some other records (or near records) worth noting, eg. Gilchrist's 2nd fastest century. Wasn't there also a partnership record set somewhere? —Moondyne 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on an averages table? Haven't seen them in any cricket series articles before, but I think they'd be fairly handy in summarising each players form without printing whole scorecards. HornetMike 02:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi co-contributors. I hadn't seen this section before my posting of a section I called "Records and Statistics", in the hope of getting something started along these lines. I would think the ideas mentioned above are well worthwhile. OzDralex 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Series

[edit]

Could someone site the comments made about Andrew Flintoff and his captaincy. I think you will find that most sensible comentators have said that he should never have been made captain, as he is too crucial a man to have not concentrating on his skills - batting and bowling. It is Duncan Fletcher who is critised the most. Does anyone agree with removing the comments about Flintoff?--Nunners 19:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

"2006-07" looks like a part number in an automobile or a factory. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) specifically states that for a sporting event that spans years, each year is written out in full. What is the reason why there should be a unbalanced, unclear date format for the title here? —Centrx→talk • 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main reason for changing it back was the sixth point on the Cricket article style guide, which is at the bottom of WP:CRIC. I assume that the style guide reached consensus amongst editors at some point, I wasn't around at that time. Also, I would say that it is fairly common parlance in Cricket to refer to non-English seasons in that format. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are just going by strictly adhering to policy, the cricket style guide does not supersede WP:NC and WP:MOS, which are a uniform standard for all articles. Looking at the history, this part of the cricket style guide was added by one person, [2], and looking at the archives there appears to have been no discussion about it at all, whereas the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) has been read and reviewed by many more people than is possible on a single WikiProject, and every part of it has been discussed and thrashed out by dozens of editors. Wikipedia:Naming conventions is directly based on the manual of style for the purposes of dating. Anyway, I do not see why the naming system here is not less clear, less professional, less balanced, for no appreciable benefit. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is also discussed here.
I would like to add that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) allows the use of two digits in a range of dates; the section "Incorrect date formats" says "Do not use two digits to express a year unless at the end of a range, e.g., "1970–87" (the same for BC)." Also, the date format on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) was also added by a single person ([3]), and there was some discussion around the time it was created (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(numbers_and_dates)/Archive_02), as well as a poll with little participation. Sam Vimes | Address me 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That allowance is specifically for space-limited areas such as templates and infoboxes; the title is not space-limited to two characters. Contrast this with the emphasis throughout of being explicit, the examples which uniformly use full years, and with section Ranges, which discourages even using intervals like this at all in text. —Centrx→talk • 14:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2006-07 in English football and all its sister articles use this format. HornetMike 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"2006-07" looks like a part number in an automobile or a factory. Let's not belittle our readers to such a degree; those clearly are years. That doesn't look like a part number any more than Super Bowl XXX looks like a porn movie. -- tariqabjotu 05:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can belittle me then, because I was confused as to what they were. It may be just that I do not live in the world of sports and television, but this is a general-purpose encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 13:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is probably best continued here. —Moondyne 13:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:2006 Ashes Series Logo.PNG

[edit]

Image:2006 Ashes Series Logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2006–07 Ashes series/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I downgraded the importance from High to Mid. It's only one series. It just seems more important because it's the current series. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. — Moondyne 09:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 17:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 05:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Trophy section

[edit]

I am deleting the Trophy section, which cites no reference and is inconsistent with The Ashes#Urn, and amending the adjacent caption accordingly. Frans Fowler (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006–07_Ashes_series&oldid=1212399312"