Jump to content

Talk:Indoor cricket (UK variant): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
In2itive (talk | contribs)
In2itive (talk | contribs)
Line 11: Line 11:


[[User:In2itive|in2itive]] ([[User talk:In2itive|talk]]) 06:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
[[User:In2itive|in2itive]] ([[User talk:In2itive|talk]]) 06:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


[[User:Py0alb|Py0alb]]'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Indoor_cricket_(UK_variant)&oldid=561686701 edit] revised the disambig line to suggest that the UK variant of indoor cricket is somehow the 'original format' of the indoor form of the game. Every source, referenced by this article and [[Indoor cricket|its netted counterpart]] clearly establish that both variants developed concurrently from the same genesis and simply evolved into different games. Seems to me that this is both established consensus and established fact, so I am reverting - particularly in light of my efforts above to quantify consensus through discussion here on the talk page.

As noted above, I am eager to establish consensus wording that is consistent with that which is established in e sources we've used thus far....

[[User:In2itive|in2itive]] ([[User talk:In2itive|talk]]) 16:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:07, 7 July 2013

Separation from main indoor cricket article

I have created this article using content from Py0alb's additions to the main indoor cricket article. It is a separate sport and thus deserving of a separate article. in2itive (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation revisions

I have revised the disambiguation line at the top to reflect the most prominent difference between the UK format and the international format, as I'm not sure "soft ball version" is an accurate way to refer to the other format. Also, rather than saying "THE indoor variant of cricket" I've modified it to reflect that it is one of two variants of indoor cricket.

Alternatives?

Further, I've revised the last paragraph in the introduction. The references to a shorter pitch are inaccurate - the international version of indoor cricket uses the same length pitch as all forms of cricket. As you'll see on the Indoor cricket page, in origin and development (sourced) both format show common roots and diverged in the 70's. Anyway, not sure that I've hit the nail on the head when it comes to the wording I've used... suggestions?

in2itive (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Py0alb's edit revised the disambig line to suggest that the UK variant of indoor cricket is somehow the 'original format' of the indoor form of the game. Every source, referenced by this article and its netted counterpart clearly establish that both variants developed concurrently from the same genesis and simply evolved into different games. Seems to me that this is both established consensus and established fact, so I am reverting - particularly in light of my efforts above to quantify consensus through discussion here on the talk page.

As noted above, I am eager to establish consensus wording that is consistent with that which is established in e sources we've used thus far....

in2itive (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]