Talk:Cricket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is the current Cricket Collaboration of the Month.

Please consider helping to improve the standard of the article.
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cricket article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Featured article star Cricket is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 19, 2004.
cricket ball Cricket is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by editing the article Cricket, or visit the project page for more details.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Cricket is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Cricket as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Chinese,  Italian or Norwegian language Wikipedias.
Former featured topic candidate Cricket is part of the Cricket series, a former featured topic candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the topic for featured topic status.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Contents


[edit] ccotm discussion

I think we should start by adding the citions first before copyediting, which I don't think is that necessary.--Thugchildz 03:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we please start on this? The refs are most needed.--Thugchildz 21:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To Do List

  1. Tag all non-referred claims with [citation needed]
  2. Add refs to all the non-referred claims possible
  3. Copyedit

[edit] Don Bradman

Alright, I know many think he is the greatest batsman ever... but I disagree :) and so do most Guyanese. Rohan Kanhai had a serious style, while he doesn't have the greatest average, I do think he was the greatest ever. George the Hippy 07:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, George, nobody thinks that Kanhai was a better batsman than Bradman. Statistically, he just wasn't. Possibly one of the greatest West Indian batsmen ever, but that's not the same thing. Slac speak up! 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Statistically no, but stylistically... perhaps! I haven't actually seen Bradman play, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt. For now. George the Hippy 15:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality

I'm sad at the deteriorated quality of the article. The lead is simply too confusing for a first time reader, a lop-sided table, far too many images and lack of references in a few sections. I'm looking to revert to an older version, something like this [1] for the explanation of cricket (lead section to other roles) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should rever it, and not that way back. The 1st paragraph has too much info in the lead; may be that should go to the summary section with bit of copyediting. Don't take out the images, it helps because there's so much to read and its visual aid. The refs are needed.--Thugchildz 21:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about the content. Anyways there's far too many images on the current page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The lead is actually a better length now. If it too confusing, it needs to be rewritten, not shortened. It was actually expanded because a "first time user" felt there wasn't enough basic explanation there. I agree about the images More references would be helpful, but I don't think that's an area where the article has been deteriorating. JPD (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I know, I'll have a go at improving the page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This first-time reader finds the whole article hopelessly confusing. I decided today to finally learn about cricket. After a several minutes wading through the article, for the first time in a long time, I actually tried to find a regular encyclopedia article. If I might suggest, early in the article put a table that outlines the steps that goes on. Something like a simplified logic diagram flattened to list form. For example, if it were baseball the table might have: 1) The pitcher throws the ball 2) The batter tries to hit the ball 3) The batter (now runner) attempts to run around three bases and return to the place of batting (home plate) while 4)the fielders attempt to retrieve the ball.

After an initial simple table with numbered entries, each entry can be elaborated on later in the article. For example: "When the pitcher throws the ball in step one, he is attempting to prevent the batter from hitting it. He is constrained, however, in that the ball must cross over the plate..." and so forth. This way, an initial simplified order of play is presented to a new reader to give a limited basis of overall understanding that can be built on by later sections to complete the details. Kurt 20:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page format

Why is everything right aligned and tiny? I thought we were going over to those new collapsable Banners now. Aaron Bowen 16:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The nested=yes attribute needs to be included for all templates so that is becomes collapsable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] = timed out - only place where the listed batting order matters

The incoming batsman is the one listed to come in next in the listed batting order. This is the only occasion where the listed batting order has any significance. I added this in the "timed out" article but this page is semiprotected and I dont feel like registering and waiting a few weeks - I have other things to do - could so someone please include this in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.247.165 (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Pro cricket?

Are there major professional cricket leagues, like there are in other sports, or do players mostly just compete for their countries? Funnyhat 06:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. The players play in the domestic league. When they do well, they will be slected for national duty, which pays a lot more - this differs from other sports like football, baseball, basketball etc. International matches are also more prestigious; a guy playing in international cricket will play in packed stadia of between 20-100k spectators, whereas with domestic cricket they are mostly empty with usually 2k-3k spectators and maybe 10k if it is a finals match. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks! Funnyhat 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timed out

The article says that no player is credited with a timed out dismissal, but four first-class batsmen have been. http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/275283.html I can't edit the article but perhaps someone else can.

Thanks, SV 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that no member of the fielding side is credited with the dismissal, unlike a dismissal such as 'bowled' where the dismissal is credited to the bowler. Similarly, no fielder is credited for handled the ball, hit the ball twice or obstructing the field. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, my mistake. I should have looked at some of the other dismissals. SV 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I still don't get it

Nothing of this makes sense. How exactly does one play cricket? Is there like a videogame where the rules are clear so that I can learn watching? Because, honestly, I live in a country where no one know what cricket is and it is never broadcast on T.V.168.243.218.198 EDIT: I read this: http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/october/howtocricket.php and now I understand it. It is amazing that there is a sport you can play for days and relax. It is the most beautiful sport ever.168.243.218.198


[edit] External Links referenced for Rules

The rules themselves seem to have been stated correctly in this article but why should lords.org be taken to be an authoritative reference on the rules of the game? Would it not be better if someone could get the reference links from here Bioskope 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Because MCC, rather than ICC, are still the custodians of the Laws. If you look at the Preface to the Laws, you will see: "Since its formation in 1787, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has been recognised as the sole authority for drawing up the Code and for all subsequent amendments. The Club also holds the World copyright." JH (talk page) 21:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Talk%7ECricket_00fa.html"