Talk:Big Six cricket dispute of 1912

Does this really warrant a separate article? Could it not be better done as a section within 1912 Triangular Tournament, at least until its expanded sufficiently to fork into its own space. —Moondyne 10:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is plenty of scope for an article. At the moment I am trying to determine the best way to include the dispute in this fortnight's WP:ACOTF, Cricket Australia. This article will allow a lot of the detail to be covered there. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Warrant a separate article? Ahhhh, do you know the history of Aus cricket? This is the most important happening in the history of Aus cricket, pre-1977. It should eventually link to many articles. Phanto282 (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A little. My suggestion was to keep it within the 1912 article until it had been expanded. Right now it says practically nothing and is unsourced. The McAlister/Hill fisticuffs and Clem Hill's premature career end are probably the most significant issues and they don't get a mention. —Moondyne 13:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So you couldn't add just one ref to satisfy requirements? This is the major topic of Aus cricket in the first 100 years of Test matches. It is an article that many WP:CRIC eds can contribute to in the future, and could be an FA

Phanto282 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets start again

Ok, given the above, how about we start this discussion again. The question raised by Moondyne was not questioning the notability of the subject. I am sure he knows enough about the subject to understand its significance. What he was asking (I think?) was given the content at present, is it better including this in 1912 Triangular Tournament until enough content has been added to justify a spin-out article. This is a reasonable question that makes no inference about the existing content.

My answer, as stated above, is that the current ACOTF is Cricket Australia which will cover a lot of the same ground. Covering the "Big Six" at any reasonable level of detail would require a spin out article anyway, so we may as well keep this now that it has been created. If a decision to merge is made, I suggest Cricket Australia#History is a better option than 1912 Triangular Tournament. I would also like to extend an invitation to all editors to join the collaboration at WP:ACOTF and bring the article on Cricket Australia up to a reasonable level. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt, everything you say is spot on. Cricket Australia#History is a much better place than the 1912 tournament article. On the other hand, if this is going to be expanded reasonably significantly and reasonably promptly, leave it here. I wouldn't like to see it stay here in its current state for more than a few days though. —Moondyne 03:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Three of the tourists who did tour: Matthews, Smith and Carkeek were also VFL footballers. Armstrong and Trumper were also. —Moondyne click! 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)