Talk:Cricket

Cricket is not popular as hockey in some countries

Why cricket is not popular in china — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardar00 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC) Because Chinese is very advance not waste time as asion country doFlykites (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

China not british part. So. Thank u. Pandya101 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Cricket is not a national game

Cricket is not a national game in many countries as it is very much popular rather than other gamesFlykites (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Well here in the USA we have no idea what cricket is. I think it's similar to rugby though, whatever that is. ...Some game they play in England with boards that they call bats. Here in the USA a wicket is a u-shaped wire stuck in the lawn that we hit wooden croquet balls through with fancy painted wooden mallets. At least that's what grandmother and grandfather did.

But here in the USA we are replacing fanatical team sports with politics, both of which are just war or war-training by another name. But politics are more realistic because political hatred and dehumanizing people is encouraged here, while in team sports you can have a friend who cheers for the other team. "Your team" is all, everything else is dirt. In war, team sports, and politics, here in the USA, the outside world has no objective meaning. Morality is for pussies because we are on a mission from God! Here in the USA we think we are too educated and civilized for another Hitler to hypnotize and take control of our population. But we are learning otherwise, —I hope we are learning.
--Doug Bashford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1F08:8C3B:E494:46FF:FE10:4CFA (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

There is New Ball Added in Cricket History Pink Ball for Test Match

Australia v New Zealand 3rd Test, Adelaide, November 2015

Pakistan v West Indies 1st Test, Dubai, October 2016

Australia v South Africa 3rd Test, Adelaide, November 2016 Australia v Pakistan 1st Test, Brisbane, December 2016

Dhirender Singh Negi (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Alastair1278 (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)hi nathan

@Alastair1278:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

Please change "No" (in the contact section) to "No-contact". Also please add the "contact sport" Wikipedia page as a hyperlink on the word. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_sport . Thanks! 83.187.165.93 (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think the infobox needs to be changed. It is already clear the sport is a no-contact sport. I can't add a hyperlink to the infobox because it is not part of the infobox code. Hope this helps. Interstellarity (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

a sport in which two teams of eleven players try to score runs (= points) by hitting a small, hard ball with a bat, and running between two sets of small wooden posts. Vishal Veeresh (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

I want to add some more info please let me. I am ishu1000 .I want to add the following.

Cricket Resumes in Covid-19: Finally after a long time cricket resumed when England played with West indies on July 8,2020

Ishu1000 (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Since the article doesn't say anything about cricket being stopped due to Covid-19, there's no context to say that it's resumed. Dan Bloch (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Cricket description

At the beginning of the article it specifies that the length of a cricket pitch is 20 metres (22 yards), this really should be 22 yards with the approximation of 20 metres in brackets. A cricket pitch is more accurately one chain (old imperial measurement) in length which is equal to 22 yards 'https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-pitch', saying that it's 20 metres is incorrect.

Mike Ashman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelashman (talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Changed this (and other measurements) to have the imperial measurement listed first. Spike 'em (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

American here who does not know very much about the sport. The opening paragraph does not tell a reader why cricket is important. Too many details that should probably not be in the intro at all.PopSci (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2020

Cricket was established in Britain and this sport includes a lot of teamwork and focuses on ones mental and physical ability 117.220.249.227 (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Diagram of batsmen's ground

Regarding this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cricket&oldid=prev&diff=979515623&diffmode=source), unless there is a source showing batsmen aren't allowed to make their ground in any part of the green areas (except for cases of Obstructing the field), the diagram should remain as a factual representation of what the Laws say. If needed, a caveat may be added in the caption of the diagram explaining that batsmen generally run near the pitch. GreekApple123 (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Whilst the diagram is technically correct, it is not representative of how the game is played, and I think it is more likely to confuse readers than inform them. Spike 'em (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Spike 'em, perhaps that makes sense for this article. But how about your similar edit on the Batsman's ground article? It seems appropriate to show the technically correct diagram in an article that is dedicated to the concept. To explain my reasoning for including the diagram, I think one thing cricket lacks relative to other bat-and-ball sports is a clear sense of which parts of the field are safe or not. Anyways, if you disagree, I'd like to let you know that Comparison of baseball and cricket has a similar image at the top of the article, so feel free to remove that as well if you want. GreekApple123 (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Spike 'em, except that a) the diagram offered is not even clearly correct in identifying the Popping Crease, which could be a useful contribution and b) it is not safe to make your ground behind the umpire. It almost says this in the Laws, but not in a way you might hope. And cricket does not lack 'a clear sense of which parts of the field are safe,' it expresses them in the language of cricket and its protagonists. Reducing the explanation on the cricket pages to be relative to baseball is not helpful to anyone except a baseball player, and is not the POV WP should adopt on this, direct comparison page aside. Whilst occasionally contributors have been tempted in such a fashion it is generally a mistake. I'm happy to step up to the plate on this.

A diagram sympathetic to User:GreekApple123's sentiment could be conceived. It would be the diagram already offered in Crease (cricket) and referenced where it is required, improved by showing the infinitely thin imaginary construction of the Popping Crease extending as the Laws describe. The diagram would focus on the area of the wicket: anything behind the striker's end umpire's normal positions is irrelevant and can be faded out. Any such diagram would need to reflect (but not copy) other good practice on such an explanation, such as is offered by MCC material, to avoid being not only OR but also just plain not cricket. On balance this page seems fine to me without any embellishment on these lines. Atconsul (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also base any proposed diagram on those on the pitch / crease articles and possibly add a note explaining the crease is notionally extended to the width of the field of play. Spike 'em (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You said "And cricket does not lack 'a clear sense of which parts of the field are safe,' it expresses them in the language of cricket and its protagonists. Reducing the explanation on the cricket pages to be relative to baseball is not helpful to anyone except a baseball player, and is not the POV WP should adopt on this, direct comparison page aside." I reply that, as far as I can see, the Laws of cricket say that a batsman must ground himself or his bat behind the popping crease at the other end of the pitch; that seems like a roundabout way of saying he must ground himself in a particular area of the field. Cricket is, after all, the world's largest safe haven game, so the idea that we shouldn't just directly show where the safe havens are doesn't make sense to me. You said "anything behind the striker's end umpire's normal positions is irrelevant and can be faded out." I reply that if you have a source backing this up, then it would be a good idea, but otherwise, I personally don't know of anything preventing a batsman from being safe in that area (though perhaps pragmatically speaking, we can say that a batsman would not be able to stand in the same spot as the striker's end umpire without his consent or something like that). You said "Any such diagram would need to reflect (but not copy) other good practice on such an explanation, such as is offered by MCC material, to avoid being not only OR" I reply that, while I don't know the OR policy in-depth, any diagram is probably OK even if it doesn't conform with general practice on these matters so long as it is a factual representation of what the Laws say, and not directly challenged by any of those sources, such as the MCC material. For example, the MCC video that shows where a batsman's ground is, at 35 seconds in (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhs1qkAkwqM), shows the batsman's ground only relative to the popping crease where it is drawn on the field, but they didn't say anything against the idea that the batsman's ground can be conceptualized as... the ground itself. GreekApple123 (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I repeat my earlier point: ...it is not representative of how the game is played, and ... is more likely to confuse readers. The batsman's ground is always framed in terms of the creases so a useful diagram would do the same. A batsman would never stand at cow corner, so I see no use in a diagram indicating that he may do so. Spike 'em (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur, File:Batsmen's ground in cricket field.png does not illustrate the concept well. Any such image must depict the pitch and creases clearly. A version of File:Cricket pitch.svg with simple clear dotted/dashed lines to illustrate extension and a note would suffice. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, I've also removed the file from Bete-ombro as the note even admits it is not representative of the rules in that game. Spike 'em (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The point of the note in Bete-ombro is to compare that game to cricket: whereas cricket has the batsman's ground in a large expanse of the field, Bete-ombro limits it to a small area. GreekApple123 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

So you are now trying to use a misleading diagram about one sport in an article about a different game? You have 3 people saying that this diagram is not useful, please consider what we are saying. Spike 'em (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

We both agree that the area behind the popping crease as drawn near the pitch is safe, so the point of using that image in the Bete-ombro article (which is a form of street cricket, thus the comparison) was to show the difference in size of the batsman's ground; even if the diagram was modified the way you all suggested, the point of using it in that article is primarily to communicate that difference in size. Regardless, I will not be using the diagram again. GreekApple123 (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I have made a diagram that I think incorporates most of the suggestions here: it focuses on the pitch, and it shows the popping crease prominently only where it is usually drawn. Please tell me if it would be acceptable for me to add it to the article: File:Batsmen's ground in cricket pitch.png GreekApple123 (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems you are trying to illustrate the concept in a novel way; as such the fundamental problems remain. Maybe it would be easier/better to find a photograph where the marked popping crease has been extended across the square – a common sight in modern short-form cricket. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I re-read this entire discussion, and I don't see which of the problems raised by any of you appear in the diagram. Are you saying that it's problematic to highlight the batsmen's ground in green? Here is a video of a match from the last T20 World Cup (https://youtube.com/watch?v=UWrq-N1jlNU); if you can point us to a moment in this video, or other media, where the popping crease is shown the way you want, then we can look for a photo based on that. GreekApple123 (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

See Cricket#Basic gameplay: bowler to batsman for a fairly good example, where File:Muralitharan bowling to Adam Gilchrist.jpg is in use. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

there is a runout halfway through that video which shows exactly what wjemather mentioned. Spike 'em (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

For the moment, I have created a version of File:Muralitharan bowling to Adam Gilchrist.jpg with the batsmen's ground highlighted in it; I'm not too good at figuring out which images are copyrighted or not (I acknowledge the run out in the middle of the video, but am not sure if a screenshot of that moment at 1:31 would be copyrighted), so someone else can upload a better image later on. But here is the version I'd like to add to the article: File:Batsmen's ground example.png GreekApple123 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC) If it would help in overcoming objections to this image, I can edit it to also highlight the area in which the bowler must bowl (the area between the bowling, popping, and return creases) at both ends of the pitch, as well as anything else you think of. GreekApple123 (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I just do not find the highlighting helpful (at all). Are there any reliable sources that illustrate these concepts in this way? In addition, for your created image, "you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use"; and yes, any still image captured from a copyrighted video would also by subject to copyright. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I put a part in the description of the image stating it's a modification of the original file, so that takes care of the credit part, I think. GreekApple123 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Quote: "Are there any reliable sources that illustrate these concepts in this way?" Reply: At 1:47 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhs1qkAkwqM, the two batsmens' grounds are partially highlighted. Page 90 of https://resources.pulse.icc-cricket.com/ICC/document/2020/09/02/6dec295c-9378-46ae-8caf-bd799858c144/05-Mens-T20I-Playing-Conditions-2020-V2.pdf shows what "behind the popping crease" (which is how it defines "batsman's ground" on page 87) looks like. Keep in mind, the diagram of a batsman's ground could be kept only to the batsman's ground page; also, it seems that the Cricket article does not directly link to that page. GreekApple123 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I just came to this. I've seen the diagrams with the orange and green bits on them and am told confused. I have no idea what they're trying to show - and I've been watching or playing cricket for 45 years. Sorry but they really don't help. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I presume you mean the red and green bits? GreekApple123 (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Given that that's the most common colour blindness combination globally, yeah, probably... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Exchange/Colonialism

Hi! Just thought it might be beneficial if a section was added about cricket as a form of cultural exchange and/or colonialism in the British Empire. It has served as a metaphor in many types of media and I think even bringing it up would be a good aspect of the topic that is not discussed as much.

Batter or batsman?

I see that this article usually refers to those who bat as batsmen (or batsman when one is being mentioned), but I do see "batter" a few times near the beginning of the article.

Now, I'm not into sports and know nothing about cricket - but I've always understood that the term "batter" is incorrect in cricket (even though correct in baseball); it was always "batsman".

Am I correct in this belief? If this is so, then "batter" should probably be changed to "batsman".

Then, with the rising prominence of women's cricket, what are women who bat called? Is there an official term? Batswoman? Batsman? Batsperson?!

Can anyone shed any light on this? Thanks. M.J.E. (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Laws of Cricket use Batsman / Batsmen throughout, but it is clear it is meant to include both genders, as it has constructions such as "BATSMAN OUT OF HIS/HER GROUND". I think batter is becoming more prevalent in coverage, but should probably be consistent in this article. Spike 'em (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to update this, in September 2021, MCC changed the Laws to use "batter" throughout: [2] and state We expect and encourage others to adopt the updated terminology following today’s announcement of the change to the Laws. The MCC cannot prescribe how others refer to the game, so I think it is up to us editors to make a decision as to how WP will refer to players. Spike 'em (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Cricket terminology is very illogical. Traditionally it was always "batsman" but, since we always say "bowler" and never "bowlsman", and "fielder" is much more common than "fieldsman", it's hard to object to "batter". (Though it always makes me think of fish and chips!) JH (talk page) 15:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It made me think of baseball, but I'm one of those now rare creatures that has played both sports a lot. It looks like other editors ahve already bitten the bullet on this to some extent. Australia women's national cricket team exclusively uses batter. HiLo48 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

ESPNcricinfo made the editorial decision in late 2020 or early 2021 to use the term 'batter'. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning Super Overs

I disagree with the following reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cricket&oldid=prev&diff=1031560413&diffmode=visual. I think any sports article (see: Baseball, Basketball, Association football, etc. which all do this in their lead paragraphs) ought to mention that there is a fairly standard tiebreaking method used in many of its major competitions, and the argument that this is "too much detail" doesn't hold up when it's only a sentence or two of added text. GreekApple123 (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

With regards to the super over, I agree that tie-breaking methods could (possibly should) be mentioned but it should not be done how is was here, which, aside from anything else, was inaccurate (N.B. this article encompasses all cricket). The rest of the additions made were unnecessary. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your N.B, I added the text on the Super Over in the paragraph that pertained to limited-overs matches, and not in the previous paragraph which discussed two-innings-per-side matches. GreekApple123 (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Limited overs (or any other form of) cricket is not confined to international or high-level domestic cricket; indeed much recreational cricket (the most widely played level of cricket) is played in the limited overs format, and very rarely would you ever see a super over there. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The date of the earliest definite reference to cricket

This article says that “the earliest definite reference to cricket being played comes from evidence given at a court case in Guildford on Monday, 17 January 1597 (Julian calendar; equating to 30 January 1598 in the Gregorian calendar).”, but this description is not correct. Monday, 17 January 1597 in the Julian calendar is not 30 January 1598 but 27 January 1597 in the Gregorian calendar. Can anyone show a more reliable source of the date? --鵺草 (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

See the sentence in our Julian calendar article: From 1087 to 1155 the English year began on 1 January, and from 1155 to 1751 it began on 25 March. Thus for contemporary chroniclers, January of what we now regard as 1598 would have been 1597. I can't throw any light on your other point until I've checked. JH (talk page) 09:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've now edited the article to hopefully clarify things. JH (talk page) 07:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be clearer if a few words were added to explain that "hee" in the quoted testimony refers to the witness himself. Otherwise, one might think that a man age 59 had RECENTLY observed boys playing the game. Martindo (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

There is a title named "Types of Match" This is slightly grammatically incorrect This could be changed to "Formats of the Game" or "Types of Matches"

The basic gameplay diagram can have a caption of the date and countries that played that match. The two countries playing SB080506 (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: @SB080506: I've changed the title to "Forms of cricket", as that is the name of the primary article. The diagram should be edited separately (I'm not sure which diagram you mean, but you should be able to edit it yourself). — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

Snapdeal

Tosifhelp (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Ferien (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

C10

Is C10 a fictional name? It's used prominently in the TV series "Last Man Out" of Midsomer Murders, while I do not see any references for that name anywhere here. --Traut (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Quite probably. There is T10 cricket (10 overs a side) played in some places, but I don't think we can list every single variant played at local levels anyway. Spike 'em (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2021

CHANGE THE WORD BATTER TO BATSMAN AND BATSMEN CORRESPONDINGLY. Michael De Santa2 1B (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The Laws now refer to batters; I feel this needs a wider discussion before reverting back to "batsman". Spike 'em (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Request regarding citations

In a number of articles on Wikipedia that related to cricket, the link to a citation goes to a website that requires payment. For example, I just came across such links in the article on Vijay Hazare Trophy. The specific website behind a paywall that is linked there is CricketArchive. That is not the only article. I think links behind paywalls should not be used especially when there are sites that have the same information for free. I know I could have changed one link, but that would not have solved the problem. This is an epidemic and needs to be addressed by Wikipedia editors in a different manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:e88d:1020::42 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. Nothing wrong with such citations, but if you have good quality free substitutes, feel free to substitute them. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Declaring "nothing wrong" is a persnickety justification of rules. WP involves editors confirming that cited material is actually in the reference (unintentional errors are not that rare), so paywalls should be DIScouraged. If there's no other source, then a paywall source is better than nothing, but even reliable sources often contain authoritative speculation (see section about Weasel Words below). Martindo (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

CricketArchive was not always behind a paywall and there are a large number of articles that link to it that pre-date this switch. This should really be discussed at WT:CRIC to gain any traction.Spike 'em (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Indian cricket team captaincy

Virat kohli has been removed from test captaincy after fight with BCCI. Anushka sharma has been posted a tweet related to Virat kohli, s cricket life and inside life 2409:4064:E80:E16A:97DA:8454:1B96:56E5 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Lazy Links & undefined jargon

I keep hearing about cricket and wondered what it was, but I'll be damned if I'm going to jump down all those blue lazy-link rabbit holes on the page just to find out. It is so much easier to create an inline link than it is to explain yourself. That would require thought and effort. Nor will the typical reader who simply wants to know what the meaning of another sentence in a Wikipedia article that he actually cares about. Especially after getting burned on this page. It's so much easier to create a lazy-link than it is to actually spend the effort and time for good writing to explain the subject. Nobody with a sane mind wants to jump down a blue rabbit hole lazy-link anymore, due to this abuse. This damages Wikipedia. Often a lazy link can be avoided with just a few extra words because the reader only wants to make sense of the sentence not a complete education in a whole other topic.

"Rabbit hole?" Take "wicket" for example. It is completely unexplained, how lazy can you be? Explanation is the PURPOSE of Wiki pages. NOT AIMLESSLY MUSING ALOUD ABOUT YOUR FAVORITE SPORT. But if you click on the dreaded lazy link, you still don't find out, —what do you discover down that rabbit hole? Just what you thought....A whole bunch of other required lazy links! More aimless feelsgood chatter about their favorite sport. Your shitten' me right?...you expect people to do that stuff!? Do I look stupid? Like we want to spend the day to get an education to find out what the hell cricket is, in this example? Like we come here for a whole damn education!? Like we have a whole day to burn? Inline links are designed to add supplemental information not substitute for clear, clean writing. But good writing is not for the lazy. Wikipedia guidelines are clear about this matter. This page does not meet Wikipedia standards.
--Doug Bashford 2607:FB91:1F08:8C3B:E494:46FF:FE10:4CFA (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Weasel Wording

How has this article remained so full of weasel wording for so long?! Somebody needs to clean this mess up. As it is, the entire article appears to lack any degree of credibility. I mean, come on! “Believed to be?” “Generally considered?” What a mess! 73.69.251.97 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

One reason is that the historical record itself is ambiguous. Consider this from the Origins section:

--The view that it was originally a children's game is reinforced by Randle Cotgrave's 1611 English-French dictionary in which he defined the noun "crosse" as "the crooked staff wherewith boys play at cricket"--

What was meant by a "boy" back then? The article List of children's games generalizes they are played at ages 7-12. The article History_of_cricket_to_1725 has a section on Creag, suggesting that 15-year-old Prince Edward may have played a game similar to cricket in 1300. Given that "teenager" is a relatively recent term, "boy" back then generally meant anyone under 21. But there is plenty of historical evidence that 15-year-olds often went off to war -- Lafayette "was commissioned an officer at age 13". So it's presumptive to assert "originally a children's game", and even more of a weasel to say "reinforced". Martindo (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

At the end of the second test at Multan, England defeated Pakistan by 26 runs.

Arshi678 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

England defeats Pakistan in the second Test, ending Pakistan's hopes of winning the series. https://www.newsstorm.online/2022/12/england-defeats-pakistan-in-second-test.html

 Not done It is not clear what change you want to make to this article, or why a single result is relevant here. Spike 'em (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Add more details of where it is most popular.

India is the place with the best cricket team rated no.1. The best cricket players are indian. Virat Kohli an indian national team player is the no.1 batter in the world. Cricket is most popular in india. Add info that says when cricket blew up,where did it blow up,which country has the most cricket stadium etc(info like that),very good article. AryamanWsg (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It was argued that Cricket (sport) lacks long-term significance against Cricket (insect) highlighting the duration of their existence. However, it was deemed to lacking in substance, as 400 years is determined to not be "recent". Pageviews, WP:GHITS, and WikiNav evidence were presented. In all cases, the sport far exceeds the numbers of the insect. In pageviews, insect never exceeds 46k views at any point of the available dataset, the sport never dips below 89k, with monthly averages of 23k vs 146k. In GHITS, sport exceeds insect overall, and in most countries also (including the most populated ones). In clickstream data, only a tiny fraction of viewers of the sport went on to the insect or the dab, indicating that most viewers found what they were looking for. One opposer argued to "avoid unnecessary additional navigation when it affects the vast majority of readers". Since the supporting arguments were countered very well by the opposing arguments, the page remains not moved. Best. (closed by non-admin page mover) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

---

• Cricket → Cricket (sport)
• Cricket (disambiguation) → Cricket

– Having looked at all the previous discussions, I think !voters are overthinking. Cricket widely refers to both a sport, and an insect.

You may consider pageviews, however long-term significance is important as well (frankly the insect has been around for millions of years [3], while the sport has been around since the 16th century).

Do not no !vote for an oppose and speedy close, just because I have reopened a controversial discussion, please.

Can we simply copy what is done with Mercury, as in having Mercury (planet), Mercury (planet), and Mercury (mythology)? 90.255.6.219 (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose cricket is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as per the arguments at all the previous RMs. "Insects have been around for millions of years" doesn't mean that is what people are searching for, almost everyone is looking for the sport (which has beem around hundreds of years, so this isn't a WP:RECENTISM like the OP is trying to invoke). A RM about mercury has no relevance to these articles, per WP:OSE, the important thing is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is clearly the sport. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Joseph2302 has said most of it. Four hundred years is NOT recent. And it's (I think) the second most popular sport in the world. I don't think the insects are as popular. This isn't controversial. Just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  @HiLo48 We don't consider "popularity". We consider educational significance.

Really? Where is the policy that says that? HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:PT2 "educational value". 90.255.6.219 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

90.255.6.219 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support there are 2 common meanings for the singular even though the plural Crickets has a clear primary topic its safest to disambiguate the singular. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• There's a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC though? Over 90% of people are looking for the sport (one of the biggest sports in the world, whereas the insect isn't near the top of its field for importance), so this proposal would make it harder for most people to find what they want. [4] Pageviews aren't everything, but they do suggest a clear primary topic. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing has changed since the previous move requests; the sport remains the primary topic and by far the most likely subject readers are looking for. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  To add – we should avoid unnecessary additional navigation when it affects the vast majority of readers. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support, no PRIMARY by long-term significance.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what that comment means. Care to expand it a little? Are you saying that the sport has no long term significance? HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support WP:NOPRIMARY In ictu oculi (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The sport is obviously the primary topic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support in much of the world the sport is completely unknown. Thus the sport primacy is regional bias and does not represent a global viewpoint. The animal exists in most of the world, wherease the sport does not have prominence in much of the world. If there is a primary topic, it would be the insect. It appears as a natural disaster in its subtype, the locust. Which also appears in the Bible. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

...says an IP editor from Canada. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm in England and while I think the sport is more common here it isn't overwhelmingly so so especially for the benefit of people in countries that has far less of the sport a DAB would probably be best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There are hundreds of millions of people from many countries who routinely get very excited about the sport. That is not the case with the insect. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - the sport, is the primary topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – Cricket, the sport, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. What readers search for matters more than what existed longer. Doubt billions of people are obsessed with an insect. DankJae 00:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @DankJae They probably are looking for the insect, outside of England, Australia, and South Asia.

  Select "Include low search volume regions" on the Google Trends "Compared breakdown by region": [5] 90.255.6.219 (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Nineteen teams, representing 28 countries, competed in the most recent World Cup. See Cricket World Cup#Overview. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

IP, if I follow those instructions, selecting that option, and using 2004-present, you get about 7 countries searching for the insect over the sport. DankJae 22:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this talk page needs a banner about why the sport is the primary topic. Please include statements that produce the reason as well as statements that don't have to be true despite having some people arguing that they mean the sport shouldn't be the primary topic. Georgia guy (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Crickets may not be as loved, but they are more common and widespread. Walrasiad (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Suprising oppose. I expected a dab here, but in May, of the there were 180k views of which only 1.2k went to the insect and 714 to the dab. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 01:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  ClydeFranklin That's actually normal. A very popular topic will have so much incoming traffic that the outgoing traffic to a hatnote will be dwarfed by comparison. Sometimes this is an easy indicator of primary topic status, but it doesn't necessarily have to be, because for example search engines will short-circuit topical searches both to here and away from here depending on the topic, because they know that Wikipedia associates cricket with the sport currently. WikiNav is just another tool that we use to read the leaves of usage, it's not the end-all solution for usage, sadly. :) --Joy (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per DankJae & ClydeFranklin. The sport is the primary topic overall. The sport is obviously more popular in some regions than others, but the same could be said of the insect. In some places, for example, they are eaten, and in others feature in mythology, and in yet others are widely ignored. The argument given that the insect has longer term significance is odd. During the time they have co-existed, it is fair to say more ink has been spilled over the sport than the insect. Maybe the sport will die out and the insect will reign eternal, but we can only deal with the current realities. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This argument has been had so many times now, I'm slightly surprised to find it again so soon. It's (iirc) the second most popular sport in the world. Joseph2302 has already said it best. I understand OP is trying to avoid ambiguity but, from reading the previous discussions and other comments here, there doesn't actually seem to be very much. Yes, a small handful of people are going to stumble over the sport when looking for the insect - I'd argue that's the case with any homonym - but significantly more are just going straight to the sport. Feels a little like fixing a problem that doesn't exist. MsJoat (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear gap in page views, and the sport has no lack of long-term significance. "Historical age is not determinative", and, as Joseph2302 notes, hundreds of years is not recent in the first place. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Metric system baseball" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Metric system baseball has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 6 § Metric system baseball until a consensus is reached. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 20:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

Add that Twenty20 is also known as T20, and clarify that games can last up to 3-4 hours, rather than just 3. Bpt5yda (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)