Talk:Indoor cricket

misleading article

The most common form of indoor cricket in England is completely different to this rather odd game. You wouldn't guess that from reading this piece. The article "Indoor cricket" should describe the game of cricket as it is most commonly adapted to be played indoors, where there is no net (what a strange idea), batsmen wear full pads and a cricket ball is used. The batsmen have to run the full length of the pitch, just like in the related sport of outdoor cricket.

This strange game sounds more like real tennis or volleyball, nothing like indoor cricket. At very least this article should reflect the prevalence of the more orthodox version of the game.

213.70.98.2 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The form of indoor cricket you refer to is certainly not prevalent anywhere other than in the UK (and that is an unverified assertion made by you). This article refers to the codified game of indoor cricket that is played around the world and has an international competition (that features England, Wales and Guernsey) that has existed since the early nineties. I am removing your references to this other game. in2itive (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two versions of indoor cricket: the traditional 6 aside indoor cricket that is by far the most popular form of the game in the UK, and the new 8 aside form of the game that has recently become popular in Australia. Its kind of like comparing Test Cricket with T20 cricket. Just because T20 cricket is now more popular in some areas doesn't mean we should delete all references to Test Cricket.

Both the 6 aside and 8 aside formats are equally notable as "indoor cricket", therefore both warrant equal weighting on the "indoor cricket" page.

The link to the ECB rules for 6 aside cricket is at the bottom of the page, so its far from "unverified".

Py0alb (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of notability of both types? Information should be both verifiable and notable, we currently have a great lack of reliable sources for this topic. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot provide notability of the 8 aside version, but the ECB (English Cricket Board) features extensive league tables and news articles about the 6 aside version of the game. I have provided links to both the main site and to the rules. Py0alb (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we all cool here now? My bit is referenced satisfactorily I think - if you think it isn't, just ask rather than deleting. Py0alb (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No, we're not cool here now. The codified form of indoor cricket that this article refers to is by far and away the more prevalent form of the game. It has a recognised world body, features international competition, and far from being 'recently popular' in Australia has been popular around the world since the 70's. All of this is referred to in the article, and all of it is verified. You refer to a different game that appears in England only. If that merits a separate article, so be it - but it is absolutely not part of this one.

Further, the edits made by Py0alb refer to "Australian 8 a side Net Cricket" which is not even close to what this is. A personal preference for a game played exclusively in the UK versus an internationally recognised sport with a world body does not warrant the weighting given to the game you've added. Also, the sport of indoor cricket (as defined by this article) has a 6 a side version already - meaning your edits are entirely misleading.

You may want to check out http://www.ecbic.co.uk/ - the indoor cricket (the sport this article refers to, not the isolated league you're attempting to insert here) section of the England and Wales Cricket Board - aka the governing body of the sport of cricket in England and Wales. You have effectively provided links to one website, with one competition. The references for what you call "Australian 8 a side Net Cricket" are from all around the world and are independently verifiable. The site you used to verify your claims was Play-Cricket - a website that allows ANYONE to set up a competition and post news and information about it. Give me 30 minutes and I could load every actual indoor cricket league into that system and by your rationale, demonstrate its status. You are using a system designed to allow CLUBS to facilitate their competitions online to justify equal billing for a CLUB competition against an INTERNATIONAL SPORT. A comparable systems include MyCricket in Australia.

Finally, you fundamentally changed the content of this article, gave your edits weighting above that which has existed for years, did so on the basis of a minor league one country and all without 'asking' - requiring me to 'ask' before correcting the record is a little bit much. I have no issue with referring to other forms of 'indoor cricket' as per the existing opening paragraphs of the article, but to give the competition you've added the kind of weighting you gave it is a complete misrepresentation of the status quo. --in2itive (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Having stewed on this for a while, I believe incorporating the club championship you have brought up in the article the way I have done here is the best way to go. The fact is, this article refers to the specific sport (and has done since 2005), not to cricket played indoors. As an internationally recognised and widely contested sport, it is certainly more prevalent that the version you raise (though I concede yours seems to be widely played in the UK). I have modified this article so that it now refers to "other forms" of indoor cricket. I suggest you place the information you've put together on the ECB 6 a Side Indoor Championship in an article dedicated to that, and that only. I have taken the liberty of referring to it within this article as Indoor cricket (UK variant). in2itive (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Do not be ridiculous. This article is entitled INDOOR CRICKET. There are two forms of indoor cricket, so both should be included, otherwise the article is misleading and biased towards one or the other.

I will revert - if you wish to put back some of your previous changes be my guest. But do not remove the section on the UK version of the game.

You should probably be aware that all references to the 8 aside version were about to be removed permanently for a lack of notability and poor referencing if it hadn't been for ME spending MY time arguing against it while you weren't concentrating. So don't get petty. There's room for both versions of the sport in this article.

Thanks

Py0alb (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This article has, and always will refer to the codified sport of indoor cricket. It does not cover every single form of cricket played indoors, any more than the main cricket article covers french cricket, blind cricket and any form of indoor cricket. Your continued references to it as the "8 a side" version of the game demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the concept. Indoor cricket, as defined by this articled, has 6 a side and 8 a side formats. Your reference to the nets as "safety netting" further demonstrates that you simply have no idea what this game is, which probably explains why you are so against it being the primary focus of the article.

Even if the form of indoor cricket played in the UK were included in this article, the weight you give it is entirely misleading, particularly as the codified sport of indoor cricket is played internationally. But I've said this (and more) repeatedly. The article has specified from day one that there are other things that can be construed as indoor cricket, and I updated this to reflect the form of indoor cricket to which you refer.

Did you know that Mike Gatting is on the ECBIC indoor cricket board? That when Sri Lanka first participated internationally, their squad featured many players who were also in their outdoor squad at that time? That many notable international cricketers, such as Michael Clarke, Steve and Mark Waugh, Bruce Reid, Mike Gatting and more have all played this version of indoor cricket? Did you know that Cricket Australia considers it the "fourth form" of cricket? That indoor and outdoor bodies have been merging all over the world, most notably in Australia, England and South Africa?

Prior to your involvement, this article has had several contributors, demonstrating a consensus that this is, in fact, the sport regarded as indoor cricket by the majority. NO ONE has raised concerns such as yours until now, and certainly not in such an uncooperative manner. The fact that there have been so many contributors has led to most of the references I had placed within the article to get lost along the way, but I have restored these (and more) now.

Speaking of restoring, that is what I will be doing to my revisions now. If you want to propose a different way of incorporating the form of indoor cricket played in the UK (and not for nothing, but codified indoor cricket is played there too) then I am all ears. My preference is a separate article. I could not disagree more with your current preferred method. If you want to find common ground somewhere in between, let's hear it. in2itive (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Might I also point you in the direction of Futsal, a form of indoor soccer. It, like the Indoor soccer article, both specify the fact that they speak to a specific sport, and not to all forms of indoor soccer. This is exactly what I am suggesting here. This article does not refer to all forms of indoor cricket. It refers to the sport of indoor cricket that is played internationally. in2itive (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In2itive, do you have any connection, either professional or commercial, to this unusual indoor cricket organisation?

Py0alb (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not. "Unusual" only to you. Take this to ANI if you must, you have ignored my attempt at compromise and all the points I raise above, including precedents. in2itive (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe you; its clear from your edit history that promoting this particular version of indoor cricket is the only reason you're even on wikipedia. I don't think you're in a position to be making an unbiased judgement on this particular topic. I would suggest a topic ban is appropriate here seeing as you can't stop yourself vandalising this page.

Py0alb (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you view the edit history of the page I have in fact cleaned the article up, and have removed all attempts at 'promoting' the sport - this includes links to venues, to youtube videos, etc. It is clear to any observer that you are fighting that which you've never heard of, which makes you wholly unqualified to debate the topic. Please try and check the references I have listed. I am reporting this now. 00:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In2itive (talk • contribs)

Feel free to clean up the article as it stands, I will help. I don't mind if you put your bit first.

I just think you're a little naive if you think that you can use wikipedia as a promotion tool for your preferred version of the game; I'm sorry but reality is very different. In the UK there are 100 6-aside teams for every single 8 aside team. You can't simply brush that under the carpet because it doesn;t fit in with what you prefer. THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. It is here to reflect the truth, not how you would like things to be. Py0alb (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe you should follow your own advice. The form of indoor cricket I refer to is played internationally. There are hundreds of thousands of people playing it around the world. As an international sport with an international competition, it is without question more notable than the sport you refer to. That, however, is beside the point. You write about a different sport. Write about it in a different article. If you want this articles named changed so that it isn't just "indoor cricket" and for us to use a disambig, fine. in2itive (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The article as you've left it now is a shambles. It jumps back and forth between talking about two different sports. The description you give of the international version of indoor cricket is not even close to accurate. It does not use a shortened pitch. The nets are not for safety. It is not "new". in2itive (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A resolution (of sorts)

Though I acknowledge it is without complete consensus, discussions elsewhere with Py0alb have resulted in him agreeing to 'settle' for each form of the game in its own article. Therefore, this article has returned to referring to the international version of indoor cricket, though it now refers to the UK variant at the top of the article and several places within it (most notably in 'origin and development' and in 'other forms of the game').

I would suggest that any changes to this arrangement could be considered controversial and should probably be discussed here first.

For reference, the 'settled' articles are (at time of writing) here (international version) and here (UK variant). The 'unified' version that caused this controversy is here.

Note that this 'settlement' refers only to the arrangement of the two formats in separate articles, and not to the content (or the verifiability of that content) within the articles. Editors should feel free to continue to help build both articles with notable and verifiable content :)

in2itive (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Expired reference

A key citation in this article linking to http://www.aol.in/cricket/story/2007090623039016000001/internationalmusic is expired and has been since at least Dec 2011 (see unsigned comment above). I added the citation originally (back in 2008), and wrote the history section based on it. Unfortunately I cannot find a cached version of the page, and all pages similar to it now reference this article - circular referencing.

I will continue to look for other primary sources that support the article, but suggest we leave as is for the moment. in2itive (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, as soon as I posted on the talk page I found an updated link to the Cricinfo article I had originally cited. The citation has been updated to reflect the new link - this can be disregarded. in2itive (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)