Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:15, 5 August 2007

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

	Cricket is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 19, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted January 7, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

Wales and EBC

Hello! Just wondered why cricket is described as a major sport in Wales but not Scotland when the Scottish side actually got through to the World Cup! Apologies for not signing and dating my post but I can't remember my damn password and Misplaced Pages is apparently broken beyond repair anyway so it shouldn't matter too much.

Wales doesn't have its own team in the World Cup because Wales is treated as a combined entity with England for cricketing purposes. The ECB, which runs English cricket is actually the England and Wales Cricket Board. The Welsh county Glamorgan has first-class status and competes in the County Championship. JH (talk page) 08:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

pitch

"Most of the action takes place in the centre of this ground, on a rectangular clay strip usually with short grass called the pitch. The pitch measures 10 × 66 feet (3.05 × 20.12 m)."

This statement is inaccurate, its not always clay, I propose a change to "earth".

Vandalism

why is this page vandalised so much? It's not exactly a hot political topic like Iraq, North Korea etc. Speedboy Salesman 07:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with scoring . . .

Hello! I'm an American trying to understand Cricket in order to play the demo for the Mark Lehrer(sp?) International Cricket game for XBox 360. I've always been curious about Cricket as we have absolutely zero exposure to it here in the States (the majority of Amis aren't culturally well rounded and don't really care . . . shameful). I looked here for information and *whew* . . . Cricket is one complicated sport! I've got some of it down pat, however I'm still stumped by scoring (no pun intended!). Whilst playing, the game listed what I assumed to be my score as 22-2. Then, at the game's conclusion, it said that Australia had won (I was England) with a score of 17-0; my score was listed as 16-2. What did I miss? I'm fairly sure I understand the ways the batting team and bowling team can score. I'm not sure what the second number in the hyphenated score stands for . . . I assume the first number to be total runs scored. Is it possible to have points deducted by penalty? I just didn't get how I went from 22-2 to 16-2. I'm totally at a loss! Is there anywhere on the internet that would have clips of a cricket game (other than youtube, which is useless . . . everyone fancies themselves to be the next Stephen Speilberg and create cute montages set to music) that I could watch? Thank you for any help you can provide. I found this site very helpful and informative. Phaedriatica 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply put - scores always go up, never down. You can't go from 22-2 to 16-2. What you MAY have had (and I've never seen the game so I don't know) was a 2 innings game. In 2 innings games the scores for the 2 innings per team are tallied up, with the highest total winning. Is it possible that you were on 22-2 in the first innings... played for a while and the other team had their inning... you had your second innings and happened to look at the score again at 16-2? Or you might have started the game and/or the innings again by accident. That would also explain how the other team won with 17-0. --LiamE 19:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is that the game has a bug. Otherwise I don't see why the score should go down. Incidentally, the answer to the question about the meaning of the number after the hyphen is that it represents the number of wickets lost. From the scores quoted, it sounds as though it was a "limited overs" game, that you managed 16 runs in your allocated overs for the loss of two wickets, but that the other side managed 17 runs without losing any wickets. JH (talk page) 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Search for "This is Cricket" on youtube. What should pop up, is a series of 7 or 8 vids by the Cricket Assoc of America that explains the rules and the "how to" really well. Start with "A 4 Minute overview" and watch the others if you want to get into the details. Search for "cricket super slow mo Australia" for a video on the beauty of the game and for "The Ashes 2006 - Second test - Day Five" (picking a match at random... :-) ) for an idea of how the game looks like when played. It's a great game, but really difficult to explain. I'm just trying to work on the German version on WP which is even harder, because Germans don't even have a concept of baseball... --Phlyz 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I already beat you to it, I gave him the links to the video. :) --THUGCHILDz 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The article really should explain how scores are reported. I wasn't sure whether it would fit best in the Overview or Results sections, but I have put it in the Overview for now. JPD (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In the section "Run scoring" a chart is shown for the different areas of the field and the name of the shots that are associated with hitting the ball in those areas. On the leg side 'hook' and 'pull' are shown as two separate areas one in the straight mid wicket area and one square and behind square. The hook and pull don’t go to designated areas of the field the difference between a hook and a pull is the height of the ball hook being over shoulder height and would often go to the same part of the field in fact they both could go anywhere on the legside. I propose this be changed to hook/pull.

With regrd to your XBox score where Australia won over England - the programmers probably though they could save some lines of code and just hardware the results of England/Australia matches - as Australia ALWAYS beats England. :-)

Cricket Explained

Hi. I came to this page to try and get a better idea of how Cricket is played but I couldn't much understand it (that's not my complaint). I think it would be a good idea to add this link: Cricket Explained (An American Viewpoint) as I found it helpful. It's from Cricinfo.com which I noticed was already a link. Thoughts? The-bus 19:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking a very quick look, it seems like quite a good article, though the hours of play in a Test are typically 6 hours a day rather than 8 to 10 (it works out at about 7 hours if you add in the intervals for lunch and tea). JH (talk page) 20:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro

There seems to be a lot of rules of the game front-loaded into the introduction. Not really neccessary for an overview of the sport. I was about to suggest comparing to baseball or soccer etc. but they suffer the same problem. Vranak

yeah I had noticed that, I'll have a rewrite it in about a week but will try to fit them it somewhere more appropriate as latter on in the article they use cricketing terms which is they are not already mentioned will be hard to understand so yeah I'll give it a go.--THUGCHILDz 00:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. When they weren't there, there were complaints that a reader unfamiliar with the sport gained no idea how the game is played from the intro. What do you expect an encyclopedia article about a sport to contain? JPD (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the intro should be a summary about the sport which is correctly it's not right now. It overwhelms people who wants to just get a little bit of idea. We don't need to go into details in the summary(intro) so I think the first paragraph of the current intro should be merged with the overview and the summary being made little bit simpler.--THUGCHILDz 23:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, the intro should be a summary of the article. The article contains details about how the sport is played, and the intro should contain a (less detailed) summary. Exactly how simple the summary should be is a matter of debate, but there were complaints about the simpler version, with people who didn't know the game saying it didn't give them any idea. There are actually very few rules mentioned in the intro at the moment. What would you leave out, and still leave the reader with an idea of what goes on? Possibly the details about the length of the pitch and the makeup of the wicket and ball, but not much more. The intro is actually quite a good length at the moment. As Vranak says, s/he seems to have a problem with the starts of sports articles in general. I definitely wouldn't suggest cutting down the baseball intro. JPD (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

why are so many terms 'bold'?

Its the first time I hav seen this it looks too 'FORCED'.--KnowledgeHegemony 09:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think because those are the main and basic terms people should know. It's a like a book where the new terms are bold but I would like to ask others before I put it back. So should new cricking terms be "bolded" or left alone like it is now?--THUGCHILDz 17:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep 'em bolded. It's highly likely that a beginner will have to go back to find them in order to understand what's going on. Slac speak up! 01:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sledging ?

Not one mention of the art of sledging? Granted Misplaced Pages's sledging page needs a little work http://en.wikipedia.org/Sledging_%28cricket%29 but it still deserves a mention in this article. Phurge 11:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bat and Ball Sport

I was pretty sure that cricket is defined as a striking and fielding sport rather than bat and ball.

It could be described in those terms as could baseball. They both still use a bat and ball though. --LiamE 10:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand

Hello

I don't know much about cricket but the game seems a bit flawed: especially the one day version. What is to stop the man throwing the ball, throwing it in such a way that it is hard for the man with the bat to hit it very far? I mean, if I just chucked the ball at the hitter's toes it would be tough for him to hit it very far wouldn't it. It seems to me that in order for the hitter to score points he has to be able to hit the ball far: he can't if the thrower is throwing rotten.

This seems to be a flaw in your game: relying on your opponent to enable to you do the thing which he doesn't want you to do. Isn't there a conflict of interest?

I would like to know any thoughts on this matter but to my mind this thorny problem means that cricket will always be ranked below tiddly winks as a sport.

Zorro

Surely the point of all sport is for opponents to try and make it difficult for each other? Bowling the ball at the batsman's toes is called a yorker and can be difficult, but if the bowler tried this every time the batsman could anticipate it and move his feet before the ball arrived. Stepping forward and catching the ball before it bounces, for example, allows you to hit the ball high and far. I am interested which sports you think avoid the problem of relying on your opponents play to score points?

That is pretty much the essence of cricket, the bowler tries to deliver hte ball in a manner that is hard to hit and the batsman tries to hit it. I don't know what is so tricky to understand? Most sports involve one team trying to do something and the other trying to stop them.

On the specifics of bowling at the batsman's feet, that is indeed often a useful tactic, although you have to be very accurate and rely on the batsman not being to quick on his feet.ReadingOldBoy 10:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Maybe I'm not explaining myself.

Say you have a one day cricket game with 50 overs and I am the bowling team. The other side need to score 200 points to win the match. If I say to my team "hey guys, I don't care about bowling the other team out so don't try throwing the ball at the three sticks. Just throw the ball over to the side, over the hitter's head etc in such a way that it's hard for them to reach it; that way they'll not have the chance to hit it very far and we'll win". If there's nothing compelling me to throw the ball at the three sticks why should I give the hitter the opportunity to score points.

In other sports, say golf or tennis, what i can do with a ball is entirely up to me: if my opponent doesn't want to play properly I'll beat him. In cricket the most cynical team can win by being unco-operative. Isn't that so? Zorro

Because if the ball is bowled out of the batsman's reach, it is counted as a wide, and the batting team automatically score one run and get an extra ball. Add this to the fact that if you bowl the same all the time, the batsmen will eventually get used to it and adjust his or her game accordingly. Andrew nixon 13:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And indeed in one-day cricket the standard for a wide is generally much tighter than in other forms of the game (i.e. a ball closer to the batsman may be called a wide in limited-overs cricket compared to where an umpire would start calling a wide in a "standard" match). David Underdown 09:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In tennis your opponent will attempt to hit the ball where you can't return it, how does this difer from a bowler trying to bowl the ball where you can't hit it? ReadingOldBoy 07:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding a link to NatWest Series website under external links

Hi

I saw today that NatWest have a new website - guess it's because their matches start next week. It's actually got some good stuff on it for a bank including a video masterclass section from Michael Vaughan (interviewed by Mark Nicholas). Anyway, I know the 'External Links' section says don;t add anything without asking here first but I've added it anyway and have then dropped you a line in here. Hope this is ok. The link I used is below.

Goonerphil

NatWest Series Cricket Official website of the NatWest Series cricket competition

Hi Gooner. We appreciate your intention, but one of the reasons for that notice is that this article is not in general the place to hav links to websites for individual tournaments (the World Cup seems to be the exception), but for websites about cricket more generally. If we added all websites like this, there would be far too many. JPD (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi JPD. Thanks for the quick response. Understand, no worries. I'm quite new to Wiki so thanks for the feedback. Goonerphil

lead

what's the problem here? Either go by regions or if your going to go by countries why does one gets listed and the other doesn't? And Instead of just reverting it why dont you move it down, since it's to long to be in the lead.--THUGCHILDz 10:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs an overview of major cricketing countries and the extent of the sport's popularity in general terms, not a list of every country where it could be called a major sport. It cant' be described in terms of continents, because the popularity doesnt' follow continents. It simply is not true to say that "cricket is a major sport in the countries of Europe, Africa, Asia and in New Zealand". It isn't even true to say it is a major sport in Italy (and it is ridiculous to give as a reference for this a page advertising sports tour which claims cricket is popular in various places in Italy). If more detail is required, then by all means add it to the international structure section, but be careful that it is accurate. JPD (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

go by regions as in south asia, oceania, southern africa, northwestern europe, central america/caribbean --THUGCHILDz 11:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So you think there is no point to mentioning the test playing nations by name? That is what the list was until someone added Bermuda, with an extra sentence about amateur competition elsewhere. Mentioning them all possibly isn't necessary, but even then, we're left with something like "extremely popular in South Asia, also a major sport in the English speakign countries of Australia/Oceania, southern (and eastern?) Africa, and the Caribbean, as well as the British Isles." Is that better to read/more informative? I don't think so. Sure, we could have more detail about to what extent cricket is played in different parts of the world, but the lead isn't the place for that. JPD (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use misleading edit summaries. Do you really think vague references to regions are better than mentioning the test playing nations? Is cricket really a major sport in North-West Europe? No. Even Eastern Africa and Oceania are a bit dodgy, and that list makes the also in the next sentence look ridiculous. And please stop using so many reference for the second most popular sport claim. Some of them are rubbish, and any fact should really only need one decent reference. If more than one are needed, it suggest that none of them are any good. JPD (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Either we are going list all the country or we are not, this is about test status or test cricket, it's about cricket doesn't matter test country or associate country.--THUGCHILDz 13:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What are "all the country"? How did you choose your list? The test nations are where cricket is played professionally (whith very few exceptions), and are clearly the best examples to give. Other examples are also given. Now you have added a paragraph to the beginning of the international structure section, not at all integrating it with the information already there, and on top of that it still contains the simply false claim that "cricket is a major sport in the countries of Europe, Africa, Asia and in New Zealand". Can we please stick to the truth? JPD (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just put the countries that cricket was popular in. The lead is the summary so it is going to contain stuff that is gone over in detailed later, and how is that a false? Is cricket not a major sport in the countries that falls the categories?--THUGCHILDz 13:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't put in the countries that cricket is popular in. You put in a collection of countries (and dependencies, and so on) for which you could find something on the web mentioning the popularity of cricket in that country, no matter what the source actually was or said. So your list was neither accurate nor comprehensive. And no, cricket is not even a major sport in Italy (which you specifically mentioned), let alone "the countries of Europe, Africa, Asia" which your sentence refers to in general. JPD (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's your presumption, actually no I got the countries because I pay attention to associate and affiliate cricket and know in which one cricket is popular and which one it's not so. I'm sure if you put time into it you could find way more stuff in the web about it so, what your saying is near impossible to do. So are England, South Africa, India, etc not the countries of Europe, Africa, and Asia? If you can reword it better go ahead but i was just trying to group them into regions instead of saying names of countries in random order.--THUGCHILDz 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

By what measure do you mean popular? In the test-playing nations, cricket has a relatively high media profile (in the UK for example, there'll be some mention of cricket in the main newspapers virtually every day, even if only one para), the random man (or woman) on the street could probably name a couple of reasonably recent players, that's posibly the case in Kenya as well, but I suspect that outside of those countries the chances of that rapidly decrease - unless you happen to pick someone with an active interest. In the assoicate and affiliate countries there may well be some subset of people who are keen, and can occasionally mnage to get some press interest, but it's at nowhere near the pervasive level it is elsewhere. In Europe, yes the UK cricket is generally reasonably popular, but France, Germany, Italy, not really. Holland you might have a bit more chance, and Denamrk has had a couple of players in county cricket, but that's hardly Europe as a whole. Southern africa you might just about get away with, but it all needs too much qualification to be really meaningful. David Underdown 08:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My presumption was giving you the benefit of the doubt, as I didn't believe you would be silly enough to think that you "know in which one cricket is popular and which one it's not so", which would be quite presumptuous on your behalf. Yes, I am claiming that listing all the countries cricket is popular in is near impossible, if only because it is not well defined. That is why you shouldn't try to do it. On top of that, knowing where cricket is popular requires more than simply following associate and affiliate cricket - it requires knowing about the countries themselves. You obviously don't know much about Italy if you think cricket could be called a major sport there. No, at least in my version of English, England, South Africa, India, etc are not the countries of Europe, Africa and Asia. I think the original wording was much better than anything that has been proposed, and don't quite see why you want to change it. Cricket follows historical boundaries, not regional ones, and I don't see why a random ordering of regions is any better than an ordering of countries followign the same random order of regions. The current ordreing also separates out the South Asian countries first, rightfully pointing out the remarkable place of cricket in their culture. While the statistics can be used to argue that it is also the most popular sport in Australia, it is actually quite misleading to say that in this context, ignoring the regional variations that result in that statistic, and implying that it is similar to the situation in the subcontinent. JPD (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)In response to David's comments, I will point out that even though when looking at the support that cricket in Holland does have you might think it is fairly significant, if you actually talk to a Dutch person, they will probably be very surprised that anyone in the Netherlands plays cricket. In contrast, it is fair to say cricket is popular in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, since their lower standard is simply due to the fact that they are small (and not even countries). Mentioning these smaller places is fair, but not really appropriate for the lead. JPD (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article as a whole, by the very nature of test status, cricket is "strongest" in those countries which hold that status so it doesn't seem too unreasonable to privilege them in the lead, then mention some of the stronger associate members, and then give a total for ICC membership. More detail can then be given in the relevant section of the article (International Structure), but even that is effectively a summary of other articles and s this is an overview article there is no point listing abosutley every article here. The hsitory of cricket means there can be no meaningful "regional" summary of the areas where it is strong. David Underdown 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The most meaningful summary is "mainly current or former Commonwealth nations". I also think that the "second-most popular sport" claim fits much better into the flow of the paragraph when it comes at the end, especially since the paragraph begins with a generally descriptioin of where cricket is popular, which the rest of the paragraph exapnds on. I would like it to be moved back to the end of the paragraph, but will not make a big deal of it, as this is a matter of style, not fact or even length. JPD (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cricket in Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Curacao, Venezuela and Myanmar (Burma)

Does anyone know anything substantial about cricket in these countries/territories? So far on the internet the only facts I've found are that there is one cricket club in San Juan (called the Puerto Rico Cricket Club) and that there is no Puerto Rico Cricket Association (due to the lack of at least 2 other clubs on the island). It also seems that Puerto Rico's sole cricket club also participates in South American tournaments (alongside Guyana, Argentina, Brazil and Peru). I was wondering if Puerto Rico's cricket club was autonomous or not, but I can find no hard information to support this. I have come across mention of Puerto Rico as falling in the Southeast cricketing region on the USACA's website (along with Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas), but in the list of cricket associations for the Southeast region the only ones are from Florida (plenty of them too) and Georgia - no mention of the Puerto Rico cricket club. For the Dominican Republic, cricket was apparently known (and introduced) early on by the West Indian immigrant labourers, but was then supplanted by baseball introduced from Cuba. There still seems to be a team for the Dominican Republic however. I've also seen reference to Venezuela playing a match against Curacao and reference to a Myanmar cricket team (which would make sense since the sport would have been introduced by the British - but then the anti-British and anti-Indian sentiments around the time of the separation from British India and independence might have dampened enthusiasm for the sport).Does anyone have any more info about cricket in these countries? Enough to start articles perhaps?72.27.29.124 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Scratch the bits about Myanmar, forget that they (unlike the others) are already affiliates and just read the article about their team.72.27.29.124 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Some things about pointing system

I am translating to portuguese the Cricket World Cup article and the results of the teams like 291 for 8 (60 overs) or 183 all out (54.4 overs), I'd like to know what are these for some number and the number after the dot inside the overs, thx. Maxtremus 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

First one means the batting team has scored 291 runs at the loss of 8 wickets in 60 Overs. Second figure translates to - batting team has scored 183 runs losing all it's 10 wickets, hence there was an end of innings in 54.4 overs. Each over consists of 6 consecutive deliveries. So 54.4 would mean 54 overs and 4 deliveries(which is an incomplete 55th over;incomplete because innings came to an end). And one more thing. It's called the scoring system and so the "pointing system" may not be the exact term in use. Gnanapiti 03:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Move

Why are people moving around this article to different title and disambig all of a sudden? Please discuss whether the page move should be done or not before making such severe decision. I'm OK with moving this article to new title Cricket (Sports), but Cricket should be redirected to Cricket (Sports) with a link to disambig page on the top. Gnanapiti 16:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Cricket should be redirected to the disambiguation page. Cricket refers to many different things, not just the sport, therefore the sport should be on Cricket (sport), not here. Malamockq 16:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Move opposed. The great majority of people specifying "cricket" are likely to be looking for the game. There are far more cricket followers than there are entomologists. You might as well say that "London" should be a redirect to a dab page because people might want London, Ontario rather than London, England. JH (talk page) 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: if this move were to be agreed, then surely Cricket should become the disambiguation page, and we would lose Cricket (disambiguation) altogether? No point having "Cricket" redirect to "Cricket (disambiguation)". Also, I think people may like to know that such a move has been discussed here before. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. As someone pointed out in that link provided by RobertG, "sport seekers have to make an extra click and insect seekers receive no benefit". We already have a link to Cricket (insect) on top of the page. This page move is of no use. Gnanapiti 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. It's a discussion. A vote here is pointless, since users here are fans of the sport, and would favor it. Right now you have to give good reason that Cricket should direct here to the sport. Whichever is most popular is irrelevant. Something like a citation that proves that the sport Cricket was named as such before the insect would be good argument. However, I don't believe that is true. Right now, I'm in favor of keeping things fair by making this page redirect to the disambiguation page, and moving this article to Cricket (sport). Malamockq 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is treating this as a vote. Whichever is most popular is relevant and should be the deciding factor for page move. It's not the question of being fair but a matter of being reasonable. Gnanapiti 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how fairness comes into it. The deciding factor should be what is more likely to be useful to those who come to the page, in other words how many are likely to be looking for information on the sport and how many on the insect. I don't think that which usage is older is relevant either. After all, Boston, Lincolnshire was founded long before Boston in the US, but I don't think that anyone would object to the US city having primacy. JH (talk page) 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe your argument is relevant to this discussion. What I'm asking is if you have a citation that indicates that the sport was named "Cricket" before the insect. Malamockq 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That argument is completely irrelevant. By those standards, Washington should redirect to Washington, Tyne and Wear, the original place name. Andrew nixon 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't understand. The argument of using examples on wikipedia, to justify your argument that "what ever is most popular is what it should be called" is poor. I can't dictate how other articles are written, and what name should take priority. Nor is the name they are redirected to, necessarily correct. That's not my place to judge those. We aren't talking about Washington or Boston. We are talking about cricket, both the insect and the sport. I ask you to stick to this topic please. Now I ask if you have a citation that indicates that the sport was named cricket before the insect. If you do not, I would like you to concede that point please. Malamockq 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't understand. What I, and others, are trying to tell you is that which was called cricket first is irrelevant. Andrew nixon 20:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are merely filibustering now. Malamockq 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not an argument that we are creating for the sake of it. Using popular names is the official policy and guideline followed in Misplaced Pages and that's it. Gnanapiti 20:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point however, the insect is also extremely common and well known to the average person. Indeed, in America, the average person associates cricket, with the insect rather than the sport. However, I'm aware that wikipedia represents a world view, I'm merely saying that popularity isn't a strong point in this discussion because both are very popular. Thus, we should go other points to decide this. Malamockq 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The "first use" argument is a total non starter and goes against wiki policy. Think it through for a moment. Where would the Paris article point? What most poeple expect, the French city or the important but less looked up Greek hero? What would be served by the change? I'm sure the Trojan's would be pleased but with a move but no other use would be served. The only real question is "is there a primary use?" While I agree that it may seem odd to American readers that the worldwide primary usage is not their own, it remains true that other than in the USA and Canada, the word cricket makes people think of the sport. Primary usage in wiki terms is "to be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings." Now I havn't counted up the links but there are 1000's of cricket articles. It is utterly overwhelming. Consider also repeat interest. Sports fans come back time and time again to the cricket articles - can the same be said for the bug? Just to put this gulf in popularity in perspective, there are more cricket articles than there are words on the bug's page, and the bug is unlikely to get a hit in the top 100 of a google search. --LiamE 05:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The change would only have negative impact. As it stands, the majority of people entering "cricket" get the page they want first time. If cricket were the disambiguation page, everybody would have to retrieve two pages. As a measure of significance, Misplaced Pages has between 250 and 500 pages linking to cricket(insect). For the sport, I gave up counting at 20,000 (all of which would have to be edited if the move went ahead) dramatic 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should take editor's laziness into account when deciding to move something or not. I will help clean up links if the move took place. I encourage others to do so too. Misplaced Pages's policies don't include not correcting something just because it would take too much work to fix. Malamockq 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on the History of cricket article, it seems obvious that the insect was named "Cricket" before the sport. I believe that is a strong case to at least redirect this page to a disambiguation page. Malamockq 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No this isn't a strong case as you claim. This isn't even a case. Gnanapiti 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That is merely your opinion justified by pointing out other wikipedia articles. A poor method of refuting points. We have already established that both the insect and the sport are popular in the common person's mind. We must go on other points to decide this. This I believe is a strong point in favor for the move. Malamockq 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote a Misplaced Pages guideline that says that the older meaning of a term should have (or usually have) priority when naming articles? JH (talk page) 20:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't study all the guidlines Misplaced Pages has so I don't know if it does or not. But I do believe I make a strong point. In any case, like I said before both the insect and sport are both popular so thus neither have a major priority over the other. That is why I ask for this page to be moved to the disambiguation page. I'm not asking for this page to become the insect's page. Malamockq 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not the best argument, but if you do a google search for cricket you get the game for the first ten pages - that's all I could be bothered to check. I know it's not definite proof, but I think it goves an indication to the games superior popularity. M A Mason 20:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) We have already established something? Where? Say Cricket in google and you have to crawl to third page to hit one link on insect.(Except for wikipedia article in second page). Say Cricket game and Cricket insect and we can see huge difference in number of hits. User:Dramatic pointed out difference in number of page links in Misplaced Pages. So what have we established? Gnanapiti 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you said before that both subjects are popular, then I must have missed it. But I would suggest that the sport is the more popular of the two by an order of magnitude, and hence is the topic on which more people will be looking for information. You claim that which meaning is the older is important, That is something that I, and several other commenters, don't accept. I think that you are going to need to find a guideline supporting your opinion if you are to have much hope of "winning". JH (talk page) 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of google hits is not sufficient enough to determine this. Popularity and understanding of, are two different things. Obviously Cricket fans outside of America are going to be searching for the game, and there might be more websites devoted to it. I don't know of too many fans of insects or crickets... Nor am I one of them. But lots of people are familiar with what crickets are, and many associate the word with the insect. It doesn't matter if they "like" it or not, the point is, they know what it is. An insect. So it's pointless to determine which is more "popular". The common person's understanding of the word is what is more important. I strongly support redirecting Cricket to the disambiguation page for cricket since neither has clear precedence over the other. Malamockq 22:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the Cricket(sport) article is not friendly to dial-up users, thus it is inconvenient to visit. I support the use of a disambig page. Ideally Misplaced Pages should be case sensitive and send Cricket to this article and cricket to the disambig page. I don't care if the game of Cricket is all the rage outside of North America, an encyclopedia should present all meanings of ambiguous terms and not make assumptions based on popularity. Pendragon39 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ahh, the annual attempt to move the cricket page. We've been through this at least three times that I can remember. Look at talk archive 7 for the 2006 edition. The current solution to include "This article is about the sport. For the insect, see Cricket (insect). For all other uses, see Cricket (disambiguation)." as the first line was arrived at after a long period of discussion and debate and should not be abandoned. Oh and I strongly doubt that the majority of English speakers (or common people as Malamockq calls us) think of hte insect ahead of the sport when they hear the word cricket. Lisiate 00:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"They know what it is" is not at all a criteria for page move by any stretch of imagination. People know lot of things. People know about India, India and India. But that doesn't mean India should be a disambig page because "common people" know things above. So what's next? Redirecting Football to American football because "common people" think of the latter ahead? Gnanapiti 00:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone enters an ambiguous term into an encyclopedia, and they are presented with search results or a disambiguation page - how shocking! The word cricket has two meanings that are commonly known. Shouldn't this be the priority for an encyclopedia to convey? Obviously if Misplaced Pages prefers to be about what are most people searching for when they enter a word then Hilton ought to go straight to Paris Hilton. No doubt most people would find that very convenient. (Hey, instead of a Go button, change it to Surprise Me) Pendragon39 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Gnanapiti, enough with the analogies. That's not how you prove your points. Give solid reasoning to why Cricket should not redirect to the disambiguation page. I have given ample reasoning behind my motivation to move the page. Lisiate, all we have to go on is your opinion against mine. I believe many people do think of the insect when they hear the word "cricket". This is especially the case where the game cricket is not popular. You may think otherwise, but it's really just your word against mine. In any case, it appears that most of the users here are biased in favor of the sport because they are fans of it. I do not believe that just because you are a fan of the sport makes for good rationale behind keeping Cricket directed here. Also keep in mind, I'm not a fan of crickets (the insect), nor do I even like them. I simply want to fix what I believe to be wrong. This is one of those cases. I already addressed the claim that the sport is more popular, and I pointed out that the insect was named "cricket" before the sport. Do you have any good reason for keeping Cricket directed to the sport, other than you are a fan of it, and want it here? Malamockq 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Coming from India, I do follow the game, I admit. But I'm not a fan of Cricket or anything like that. The only reason for this page to find a place in my watchlist is that some Cricket related article appeared in main page a while ago and lot of IP vandals became active in this article. So I was busy reverting vandalisms the whole day and the page just remained in my watchlist. Proof? Check article history. I don't have even a single edit in this article, except may be reverting some obvious vandals. I'm also discussing here for the same reason as you are, to fix what I believe is wrong. I've already provided lot of good reasons like Misplaced Pages policies, Google hits and all such things, but still if you want to go with your own argument completely neglecting Wiki procedures, please go ahead. But I'm afraid you'll have very hard time convincing other contributors. Gnanapiti 03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Malamockq, have you read the archived discussions? This point has been raised before and the solution adopted was to put a link to the insect and disambiguation pages in the very first line. All of your arguments have been raised before and the consensus was the situation we now have. This move will not 'fix' anything and will inconvenience those who are after our article on the game. Lisiate 05:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside whether age of usage is actually relevent to this argument I don't think it is particularly obvious which is older. Looking at the OED both current usages seem to have emerged in the 16th Century. If we want Cricket to redirect to the original meaning someone needs to write a page on mythical salamanders. ReadingOldBoy 07:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave it as it is. I think that the sport is the basic meaning in current English. It certainly is in England and Australia, at times it almost seems to be an alternative religion (which I don't follow particularly myself). If there were an animal called a baseball, with no obvious connection to the sport, I doubt that anyone would suggest replacing the baseball article with a disambig or a redirect to one. Andrewa 09:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So far I have not heard any good reasons for keeping Cricket directed to the sport instead of a disambiguation page, other than Cricket fans just want to keep it here, and they think it's more popular (that point I already addressed anyway). So far, arguments have merely been analogies comparing this situation with others to justify keeping Cricket directed here. You don't prove points through analogies. Prove points with valid arguments. Both the sport and the insect are common usages of the word Cricket, therefore a disambiguation page must be used to provide differentiation between the two. Malamockq 02:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Malamockq you haven't addressed any points at all. You claim that the popularity argument is just opinion but other users have demonstrated that the game is far more commonly used than the insect. Arguments based on analogy are valid in this case (have you even read the article on analogy?). Your argument consists of two assertions - that the word cricket has two common meanings and one predates the other. The status quo arguments are that the game usage is vastly more common and therefore the majority of users who type cricket in the search box will wish to go this article. The minority who seek the insect (or indeed any other usage) are catered for by a link at the very top of the page. Changing this situation will inconvenience the majority and provide no benefit to the majority (as the insect seekers will still need to click through from the disambiguation page anyway). Once again I ask that you read the prior discussion on this issue and give up this silly attempt to move the article. Lisiate 03:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that you consider me a cricket fan, particularly as I explicitly said I didn't follow the game. There are many other arguments I could have put, but I thought they had been well put above.

To summarise, WP:DAB#Primary topic reads in part When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article and If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic. This emphasis is not mine, it's in the guideline. What we're saying is that the sport is the primary topic. You're disagreeing. The object is to arrive at a consensus if possible, so what would you consider a valid or good argument? Andrewa 09:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> I can't remember how many times we've had this discussion, but as ever, I'm against the change from previous consensus. I particularly liked the London metaphor brought by JHall, above. --Dweller 10:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is extremely silly. Leave it as it is. Nick mallory 10:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, you mean I'll have to click twice rather than once to find the insect? Utterly unacceptable... The Rambling Man 11:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(Pre-emptive strike) Please read irony before replying to The Rambling Man. --Dweller 11:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Proponents of the move seem to be saying that opponents must prove a case against it. I would like the poponents to explain precisely what benefits would arise from the move: As far as I can see, there are none. People searching for information on an insect will still have to visit two pages (don't talk about page size - browsers have stop buttons!) - they are no better off. People looking for the sport are worse off. So is there any benefit to be had? dramatic 11:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The Rambling Man 11:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Must say I tend to agree with Dramatic: I don't see any benefit, while the considerable annoyance that the overwhelming majority of our readers would have to deal with, that of not reaching at the first strike the topic almost all of them will be searching for.--Aldux 14:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dramatic, I already covered this. Both are popular terms, therefore neither should have priority over the other. Both should be listed on the disambiguation page where Cricket should direct to, or should become. Ease of use is fine, but when you choose one popular usage over another popular usage, it becomes biased. Both usages of the word "cricket" are common, and in America, the insect is by far more common. Misplaced Pages represents a world view, which is fine, but the fact remains that both usages are common. Malamockq 23:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Another point, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Cricket Dictionary.com lists the insect as the primary definition. Origin: 1275–1325. The sport is listed second, and its origin is 1590–1600, which is later. So two points, Dictionary.com lists the insect as the primary definition, and its origin was earlier. Both of these points are strong enough to argue for redirecting Cricket to a disambiguation page instead of the sport. Malamockq 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Britannica lists game as the first search term. As so many editors have already said early origin is not a criteria at all and should not be considered. Gnanapiti 23:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look carefully you'll notice that Britannica is..... British. Its origins are British if nothing else. Therefore of course it would list the sport first, Cricket originated in Britain. Also that was merely a search result. It's not a listing like Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com listed the primary usage first, which is the insect. And no, I believe early origin is indeed a valid argument considering both usages are extremely popular. Malamockq 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahemm...Maybe you don't know, but Britannica is actually American, and since quite a lot of time. Also, don't forget that the USA is only the 5% of world population, while cricket is the most popular sport among a quarter of world population.--Aldux 00:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to prove how American Britanica is these days may I their quote article on The Don..."One of the greatest run scorers in the history of the game, in test (international) matches Bradman scored 6,996 runs for Australia and set a record with his average of 99.94 runs per match. In 1948 he was captain of the Australian team that was victorious in England, four matches to none. He retired from first-class cricket in 1949 and was knighted in the same year. Bradman is often judged the greatest cricket player of the 20th century." Where do I start.... --LiamE 01:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Return Cricket to Cricket (sport) and move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket. Clearly there is question about the primary usage here. For me I think of the insect and the magazine. Sports tends to get better coverage from the fans (fanatics). If your country was in the old British empire, then the sport is likely the first thing you will think of. Vegaswikian 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved from WP:RM

If this move were to be agreed, then surely Cricket should become the disambiguation page, and we would lose Cricket (disambiguation) altogether? No point having "Cricket" redirect to "Cricket (disambiguation)". Also, this move has been discussed before. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

'cricket' as a search term

The results are marked according to 'relevance'. It appears that for Misplaced Pages relevance is based on what is popular and not the possible meaning of words. Entering 'crickets' as a search term still yields the game of Cricket as being 100% relevant. This is where we disagree as to what an encyclopedia should do Pendragon39 02:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles