Talk:Comparison of baseball and cricket/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, though with the super-important and very serious caveat that despite this name change cricket remains the objectively superior sport. Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Comparison of cricket and baseball → Comparison of baseball and cricket – Practice tends to favor alphabetical order in titles like this, bilateral relations, sports rivalries, etc. --BDD (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support why not? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• No objection Though the practice is weak .. a short google survey gave 10 alphabetical : 6 not Alanf777 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Why, really? This seems like a pointy request. Cricket is the much older game in anything like its modern organised form. It is played and followed by far more people. (Think of India.) International competition is far more significant in cricket, and is clearly the highest level of the sport. And it's not as if they're competing with one another, so this really has nothing to do with bilateral relations or sports rivalries. So again, why change, really? HiLo48 (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I realize "POINT" gets thrown around a lot, but is that really what you're suggesting? Am I disrupting Wikipedia? Am I trying to make a point? (If so, what point is that?) Do you really review this request as pointy, or just pointless? --BDD (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, here we have an article with a stable title, that nobody (to my knowledge) has ever questioned in the past, and an American editor comes along wanting to put the American sport first. Sure, there's an ostensible objective reason given, but no thought seems to have been given as to why the title is as it currently is. As one of those rare people in the world who has played and knows about both sports extensively, I am aware that most Americans know almost nothing about cricket, and its global spread, and most non-North Americans know bugger all about baseball. It's hard to assume informed good faith. Really, why change this? HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Would the idea have occurred to me if I were British? Perhaps. I think so. I think alphabetical order is almost always the best way to go with descriptive titles like this. That, of course, means the US almost always comes second in bilateral relations articles and the like. This isn't about boosterism of any sort. --BDD (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 18:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's nothing more than a vote, and we don't vote here. HiLo48 (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's more than a vote. It is stating that he agrees with the rationale already provided by the nominator and has no additional comments to add. How much weight that will be given of course depends on the closing admin. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that quality and content of argument is all that should count, the post adds nothing, unless, of course, it counts as a vote. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It is making the same argument as the nomination, and so has the same quality and content without actually retyping all the same words. Rlendog (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so what is the point of the post? HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

We are looking to achieve a consensus. So if editors agree with a particular argument that can be relevant, even if they don't retype or paraphrase the argument over. By your logic, if I agree with you but can't think of any other points to add, instead of saying so I should just stay away from the discussion, since you already said what you did. Rlendog (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise it's just a vote. And we don't vote here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. While I am currently undecided, should I decide that I agree with you I will abide by your wishes and avoid letting the fact that I found your argument to be compelling to be known. But, you may want to keep in mind that while "per X" arguments are not particularly strong, even WP:PERNOM recognizes that "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient." I choose to assume good faith and presume that Calidum believed that the nominator's argument was suitably comprehensive and/or compelling that he felt such an endorsement was sufficient. Rlendog (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, these days I quite often find myself looking at a discussion, seeing that what I would have said has already been said, and saying nothing. I feel it's more efficient. And I hate votes. Votes allow majorities to bully minorities. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support purely for consistency's sake.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Comparison of baseball and cricket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061006194244/http://cricketclub.org:80/can_usa.html to http://cricketclub.org/can_usa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Typo?

Hi, The "Sportmanship" section has the word "spotmanship" at the end. Typo, or is that a thing? T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Baseball coach on cricket

This is a link to a story by a baseball coach commenting on cricket. Seems like it should fit here. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.104.40 (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fielding strategy

Way too much on Baseball in this section considering there is nothing on Cricket, just a vaguely related paragraph at the end regarding captaincy. Either we cut this section or put in a brief overview on fielding strategy in Cricket. (the latter I shall do when I have time, if no one else is so inclined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.64.125 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of baseball and cricket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106065059/http://www.lords.org:80/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/preamble-to-the-laws,475,AR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/preamble-to-the-laws,475,AR.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Pitching position; balk

I'm surprised that the article mentions nothing about pitching position ("wind-up" and "set") or about the balk in pitching. It would be interesting to know whether there is a corresponding commencement and follow-through or feinting stricture in bowling. Perhaps there's no value to attempting a bowling feint of any kind. Rt3368 (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of baseball and cricket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/preamble-to-the-laws%2C475%2CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120715234108/http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/as-american-as-cricket to http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/as-american-as-cricket

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of baseball and cricket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101228234625/http://www.baseballparks.com/BallparkChart.asp to http://www.baseballparks.com/BallparkChart.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130327232332/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/spirit/ to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/spirit/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ian Terence Botham

I see this was mentioned briefly in Talk:Comparison of baseball and cricket/Archive 2#Good article nominee, but describing Ian Botham as having relatively poor averages is neither supported by the reference nor in his actual averages. A quick search shows that 1274 players have played 10 Tests. Filtering out those who were infrequent bowlers 183 of these players have a better career bowling average than Botham, and 360 a better career batting average. Only 10 are better on both counts. He was rated the world's best bowler for 2 years and best all-rounder for 5. I'm minded to just remove mention of him, but would anyone like to defend keeping it? Spike 'em (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Primary Units

As per WP:UNIT, the primary units for non-scientific articles (not pertaining to the US/UK) are the metric units. Since, this is not a non-scientific article pertaining to the US/UK (as both baseball and cricket are international sports), I believe it would be advisable to use the metric units as the primary units, followed by additional units in brackets. Rajan51 (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That guideline says we should use whatever is customary for the topic at hand. The official specifications for both fields appear to use yards and similar, so that is the primary value we should mention. It would be unusual to identify a formally defined value that is defined in yards by first converting it to meters (with possible loss of accuracy) followed by re-conversion back to yards (with again possible loss of precision) rather than first "saying what the refs say" (closer to WP:V policy) and then converting or explaining it in other terms for some readers' convenience. DMacks (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The current unit order has over 10 years of consensus, reached after a lengthy discussion.caz | speak 02:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@DMacks, we can use the specified units for the standard rules of the games. But for approximations made on things like ground size and ball speeds(for which there are no specifications), we can use the metric units.

@caz, I would like to know where this consensus was achieved. Rajan51 (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@rajan51, See the first discussion on this talk page, from 2006. There is an extensive discussion how to present the units within the page. caz | speak 15:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Baseball uses the English system of feet and inches exclusively; [2]. Cricket uses both, with the English system as its primary measure, and metric as a conversion, after a slash (e.g., "5 ft/1.52 m"); [3]. This article uses both, with the English system as its primary measure, and metric as a conversion, albeit with parentheses. Obviously it makes sense continue to use the English system with a metric conversion, rather than to go to a scheme that is inconsistent with both subjects' actual rules.

"Baseball uses the English system of feet and inches exclusively" is not strictly true. In Canadian baseball parks, the distance to the outfield fences is displayed on the fence in both feet and meters. Just a quibble. However, having gone through this article in an attempt to understand cricket better, and then trying to look at it from the point of view of one who knows as little about baseball as I do about cricket, my opinion is that it is equally incomprehensible to baseball fans and cricket fans. Such undefined terms as popping creases, silly point, limited overs, stumps and wicket (are they interchangeable names?), "swinging for sixes" and other impressive manifestations of British language were simply no help at all to me. Some definitions of these and other terms on an elementary level might help. It shouldn't be necessary to read Cricket and grok it fully before reading this. Wastrel Way (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Eric

WP:UNITS is not to the contrary. It specifically says "The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances", and the existence of two formal sets of rules that are the official word on the two pertinent subjects is a very strong circumstance. TJRC (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)