Talk:Cricket/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Edit request from 94.202.239.13, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The claim that it is the second most popular sport in the world is not adequately supported. The associated footnote links to an article in which a proponent of the sport makes the claim without providing adequate support. Until such support is provided, the final sentence in the intro section should read "according to some proponents of the sport". 94.202.239.13 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Not done:That reference appears to be reliable, and every list I look at online marks Cricket as the second most popular sport in the world. While those sites generally don't meet WP:RS, they definitely aren't all by "cricket proponents." Keep in mind that there is really no doubt that it's the most popular sport in India, and their population alone is enough to push it very high. Unless you have reliable sources that dispute this view, I'm inclined to leave it in. Anyone else disagree? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Link

Not sure if there's a high school Cricket page but thought you guys might be intersted in reading this...I'm trying to revamp the article for my high school (which is closed now unfortunately) but we fielded a high school cricket team. Check it out: Cardinal Gibbons School. Anyway to get a link on this page or the cricket high school page? Wberkey (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Cricket is played in countless schools around the world. Can you imagine the mess if we tried to include a link to every team on this page? --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Cricket just only a Game (Entertainment) or concerned with proud of Nation or a Business?

Game (Entertainment):
1. It (Cricket) is only a game, not more than it. And game is playing for creating character.
2. One philosopher told “I can’t know a man even I live with him for so many days but if I play a game with him for an hour only, I can know him”. It means game is the way to make relationship closer. That’s why according to me countries are supporting games. As well if we see history of Olympic, it seems also a part of this theory.
3. Yes it is right when player plays, he should be aggressive. But spectators should not be aggressive, they should only enjoy cricket as a game.
4. We know that players are coming from different-different places, their nature & culture are also different-different, then we cannot give them responsibility of our National Proud.
5. As well as they cannot be an ideal for nation, however as a player he can be for any rising player.

Proud of Nation Concerned:
1. Being an Indian, I am always willing that our team must win.
2. Its question of our proud, we should think that among billions of people even elevens have not talent or ability to win a match or word cup.
3. If any player creates record then he/she become famous as an Indian, so its concerned with proud of nation. And when he/she brought up in India then obviously nation also support to draw out his/her talent.
4. Yes, game exposes character, so in this way also it is concerned with national proud.
5. Yes, players are coming from different-different states, and there is so much diversity (variety) in them, even though if they play & perform well then it’s proud.

Business:
1. Nothing is bad to earn money from Cricket & Indian Premier League is the example of it. Organizers, Franchises, Cricketers etc are earning but people can also get entertainment.
2. Yes, those elevens have talent & they are using their talent to earn money.
3. This business can provide employment to retired cricketers, electronic & print media, etc.
4. Cricket & cricketers are best medium for advertisement of any product. Then they have no worry to do any publicity stunt.
5. This game is career for cricketers & they’re maintaining their health for cricket, they’re not playing for health.

Conclusion:
Now in a days all are considered as a business then it is a game or art or anything, therefore it is not bad if cricketers or businessman or concerned persons earning money from it. But sometime due to this some nuisance also enters in it like match fixing, dirty politics, provincialism, underworld, etc. At that time if we considered as National Proud then it will surely hurt us. So it is better to consider it as only a game. However if any cricketer is playing good and do some extraordinary then it is a proud for whole nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayursharma55 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Second most popular sport"

I removed the statement that cricket was "the second most popular sport in the world" from the lead - I think that its probably true, depending on how you define popular, but the given "source" was totally inadequate for the claim and a good source for a similar claim was surprisingly difficult to find. There are plenty of "fan estimates" on the internet that make this case but obviously they are not suitable for our purposes. It does seem like some variation on this fact would be an interesting "snippet" to include in the lead though, if anyone can do a better job of finding a proper study / estimate. Ajbpearce (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The removal was probably a good idea. It's very difficult getting agreement on how to measure popularity, especially between fans of competing sports. HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Gregorian date reference is plainly wrong

"The court in Guildford heard on Monday, 17 January 1597 (Julian date, equating to the year 1598 in the Gregorian calendar)" This is simply wrong. The Gregorian calendar reform moved the date 10 days forward, i.e. Thursday October, 4th 1582 was followed by Friday October, 15th 1582. Therefore January, 17th 1597 Julian date is January 27th, 1597 Gregorian date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.70.224 (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

1. The switch to the Gregorian system did not take place in England until 1752, not in 1582. 2. In England. under the Julian Calendar the new year did not begin on 1st January but on 25th March. Thus a date in January that was recognised as being in 1597 on the Julian calendar current at the time, equates to 1598 under our modern Gregorian calendar. JH (talk page) 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture of wicketkeeper stumping batsman.

The description of this picture says that the wicketkeeper _successfully_ stumped the batsman; The same picture can be found in the article Stump (cricket) [1], there it says that he only attempted but did not succeed because the wicketkeepers food was behind the line.

Dates not Phone Numbers!

In that table near the end of the article, what should be dates are interpreted as telephone numbers! Can someone please fix. P0mbal (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Which table? I can't see any table with what looks like phone numbers in it. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "interpret"? My guess is you are looking at the site on a mobile device? My mobile devices (iPhone and Blackberry) often show numbers on web pages as dialable numbers. (dialable?) --Bridgecross (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Overs

Hi Can we please add a link for "overs"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_%28cricket%29

Thanks Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmaddenwiki (talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Innings vs Inning

There have been 4 changes in the last two days due to baseball fans changing innings to inning (i.e. 2 erroneous edits and 2 corresponding corrections). I recall that there used to be a comment on the page to prevent this (Added in 2004, looking back through the comment archives). Was the comment removed for a reason? Should something similar be reinstated to prevent this problem occurring, or does this occur rarely enough for it not to be a problem? PRB (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's because I added new text prior to the singular vs. plural explanation. I've added another explanation with the offending text. --RSLxii 16:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from DoJo60, 20 September 2011

Please add New Zealand, between 'India' and 'Pakistan', in the last para about where cricket is played. Thank you. And yes, I am a Kiwi...

DoJo60 (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done IgnorantArmies^?! 07:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Sport" versus "game"

Please "find and replace" all references from cricket as being a Sport to a Game. Justification cricket is a game of skill not a sport. If this there is a disagreement please provide vaid justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeGamer65 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be your personal perspective. We have a rule about that. We go by reliable sources, rather than opinion - there are hundreds of millions of sources calling cricket a "sport". --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Technically, the only true sports are hunting, shooting, and fishing. Everything else is a game. That's why the Olympic Games were so-called. A true sport brings in something you can eat afterwards - the others do not. At least, that was the original definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"Technically"? You may need to define that word first. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Cricket is a game. One authority on that is Sir John Major, who did a short series on the history of cricket on BBC radio. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sy4n4/episodes/guide : the series will I trust be repeated. The opinions of those from countries which do not play Test Cricket are of no value. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes no distinction in value of statements from one national to another. I will not stop editing articles on Czech or Japanese subjects simply because I am American. Reliable source or go home. --Bridgecross (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"the only true sports are hunting, shooting, and fishing." Wow, if anything ever needed a reference, it is that statement. Sport vs Game --Bridgecross (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This argument is interesting when applied to darts, but honestly, in this instance, there's not even an argument to be had. --Dweller (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

London Wiki and cricket

I know nothing about cricket, but am developing the London Wiki [www.london.wikia.com]. Anyone wishing to develop relevant pages is welcome to contribute. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Rankings are Completely wrong

Sir (I don't know whom I am talking to ); the current rankings which are given are wrong. India is 5th in one days. Moreover there are some other mistakes as well. I dont know why, but I think this page is locked. Please update it quickly.--Pritam Laskar (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I've updated the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article push

Hi all. In the past, this has been a Featured Article. User:The Rambling Man and I would like to push it back to that status. Communication and to-do lists will be focussed on this page. I'm going to invite members of WP:CRIC to join, but everyone is truly welcome to feel free to help, comment, criticise etc. I'm cognisant that the article needs to explain what is often perceived to outsiders (and not just Americans) as a difficult to comprehend sport. But it needs to do so without dumbing down. That will be a major challenge. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As per my comments below under simple one sentence section, this article is in desperate need of just a simple explanation of the sport and what it looks like when it's played. When explaining a team sport it basically should start with the goal of the offense or defense (depending on who is taking the active/aggression roll, the defense I believe in the case of cricket) and then state the goals of the offense to stop them from taking these actions.

...I'll use baseball as an example because I know enough to explain it simply (whose article also needs help), you'd describe the field, its components; you'd describe the intentions of the defense first (defense is the agressor in baseball, like cricket.) You'd explain that the defense takes the field. Every play begins with a "pitched ball" thrown by a pitcher standing on the "pitcher's mound" in the center of the diamond. The pitcher's initial goal is to throw "strikes" by throwing the ball through the "strike zone." The strike zone is an imaginary rectangle that hovers above home plate. (true the pitcher's main goal is get outs however possible but this will become obvious if it's continued to be explained properly and not pedantically, which is what this article suffers from...) A player on defense called the "catcher" is behind home plate to catch the ball after it's pitched. During the pitch, a batsman or batter on offense stands next to home plate in one of two "batter's boxes." The goal of the batter is to hit the ball out of the air with his bat and prevent the pitcher from throwing strikes. (note that I didn't say the goal of the batter is to get a hit, and score runs, because that doesn't explain anything to the reader.) A pitched ball that misses the strike zone is called a "ball." A hitter with a good eye will typically avoid swinging at "balls" outside of the strike zone and only swing at strikes. ..This would be the type of writing needed for cricket...

I believe cricket is similar in that the bowler is trying to hit the wickets, just like the strike zone right? But it's not really explained clearly and without jargon for it to be a quality article... Basically start with the game in its simplest form.. Usually all ball sports come down to the goals of one person with a ball and someone trying to stop them in some way. And when it's a team ball sport it's just a bunch of people who are helping the person who started out with the ball. Start by explaining the goals of the player with the ball and what they'd be doing if there was no one to stop them, and then explain how the other side is trying to stop them, very simply.. Dancindazed (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Dancindazed - your comments highlight very well the problems we have. The terms defence and offence (note UK English spelling - and pronunciation is different too) aren't going to help much in drawing parallels with baseball. The bowlers in a cricket team are collectively known as the bowling attack, not the defence. Batsmen play both attacking and defensive shots. I've played both games extensively, and would love to make some improvements to both articles, but it's difficult to know where to start. I appreciate your suggestions. They may help. But we cannot use the terms defense and offense. (My spell checker hates those two words!) HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

See that's what this article suffers from, though. All the writers of the article are afraid to use any terminologies outside of the jargon of the sport. Defense and offense are standard words that can be used from the English language. It still applies to any sport, whether it's used or not, and they're universal terms. Now if you simply describe each side of the ball better and let the reader know what they're called, that would be fine, but the attitude that a word can't be used unless it's already identified as lingo for the sport, again is the basic problem. If someone wants to learn what Cricket is and how it's played, one should be able to do that from the cricket article, not get lost in a see of terminology, branching off from one another. It's not that much different than a word using itself in its own definition.. Dancindazed (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You have either ignored or misunderstood most of my post. I'm not sure where we can go from here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The thing is Dancindazed, its not a matter of terminology, the point is that the concepts of defence and offence do not readily apply to cricket. Its not like baseball where the hitting team is the offence and the fielding team is the defence. In cricket both the batting side and the fielding side simultaneously attack and defend, or rather, switch between them as the state of the game progresses. To call the batsman "the offence" and the fielders "the defence" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the game Py0alb (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Article structure

I think the first thing we need to do is get the structure right. I instinctively feel that people visiting here should first get an understanding of how the game is played, before going into history or international governance. Any views? --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Current and former structures

For reference, here's the current structure, followed by the one in place when the article became an FA, back in 2004.

Current

1 History 2 Rules and game-play 2.1 Summary 2.2 Objectives 2.3 Pitch, wickets and creases 2.4 Bat and ball 2.5 Umpires and scorers 2.6 Innings 2.7 Overs 2.8 Team structure 2.9 Bowling 2.10 Fielding 2.11 Batting 2.12 Runs 2.13 Extras 2.14 Dismissals (outs) 2.15 Innings closed 2.16 Results 3 Distinctive elements 3.1 Individual focus 3.2 Spirit of the Game 3.3 Influence of weather 3.4 Uniqueness of each field 4 Types of matches 4.1 Test cricket 4.2 Limited overs 4.3 National championships 4.4 Other types of matches 5 International structure 5.1 Members 5.1.1 Full Members 5.1.2 Top Associate and Affiliate Members 6 Statistics 7 In popular culture 8 See also 9 References 10 External links

Former (2004)

1 Objective 2 Players and officials 3 The playing field 4 Match structure 5 Play of the game 6 Scoring runs 7 Dismissal of a batsman 8 Player roles 9 History of cricket 10 International structure of cricket 11 Forms of cricket 12 See also 13 External links 14 References

Ignoring the detail, the overarching structure from 2004 (what is cricket, how did it come about, different formats) works for me much better than the current (how did cricket come about, what is cricket, different formats, stats) I'll take a look and see if we have any recent FAs on other major sports and how they're structured. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Other sports FAs

I'm not sure how current these are, but I can find 3 other "top" sport FAs: Association football, baseball and Olympic Games. There structures are:

Football: 1 Etymology and names 2 Gameplay 3 History 4 Laws 4.1 Players, equipment, and officials 4.2 Pitch 4.3 Duration and tie-breaking methods 4.4 Ball in and out of play 4.5 Misconduct 5 Governing bodies 6 International competitions 7 Domestic competitions 8 Women's association football 9 See also 10 References 11 External links

Baseball: 1 History 1.1 Origins of baseball 1.2 History of baseball in the United States 1.2.1 The game turns professional 1.2.2 Rise of Ruth and racial integration 1.2.3 Attendance records and the age of steroids 1.3 Baseball around the world 2 Rules and gameplay 3 Personnel 3.1 Player rosters 3.2 Other personnel 4 Strategy and tactics 4.1 Pitching and fielding tactics 4.2 Batting and baserunning tactics 5 Distinctive elements 5.1 No clock to kill 5.2 Individual focus 5.3 Uniqueness of each baseball park 6 Statistics 6.1 Sabermetrics 7 Popularity and cultural impact 7.1 Baseball in popular culture 8 See also 9 References 10 Sources 11 Further reading 11.1 Online 12 External links

Olympics: 1 Ancient Olympics 2 Modern Games 2.1 Forerunners 2.2 Revival 2.3 1896 Games 2.4 Changes and adaptations 2.4.1 Winter Games 2.4.2 Paralympics 2.4.3 Youth Games 2.5 Recent games 3 International Olympic Committee 3.1 Criticism 4 Commercialization 4.1 Budget 4.2 Effect of television 4.3 Controversy 5 Symbols 6 Ceremonies 6.1 Opening 6.2 Closing 6.3 Medal presentation 7 Sports 7.1 Amateurism and professionalism 8 Controversies 8.1 Boycotts 8.2 Politics 8.3 Use of performance enhancing drugs 8.4 Gender discrimination 8.5 Violence 9 Citizenship 9.1 IOC Rules for Citizenship 9.2 Reasons for Changing Citizenship 9.3 Growing Trend 9.4 Citizenship Changes and Disputes 10 Champions and medalists 11 Host nations and cities 12 See also 13 Notes 14 References 15 Further reading 16 External links

I'm not sure there is a hard-and-fast rule here. Personally, I think the current cricket structure is a mess and the rules section in particular in horribly long and convoluted. My (slight) personal preference would be to keep history at the start, but I've no firm opinion either way. And I quite like the baseball structure. I note that neither the current nor former cricket article has a section on tactics or technique, and that the current version has (probably essential) sections on batting, bowling and fielding which the former version lacked (although they are just kind of stuffed in there as part of the rules instead of saying much about them). --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And one other possible useful comparison. The Encyclopedia Britannica has this for cricket:

1 Introduction 2 History 2.1 Origin 2.2 The early years 2.3 Technical development 3 Organization of sport and types of competition 3.1 County and university cricket 3.2 The Cricket Council and the ECB 3.3 International cricket 3.3.1 Australia 3.3.2 Bangladesh 3.3.3 India 3.3.4 New Zealand 3.3.5 Pakistan 3.3.6 South Africa 3.3.7 Sri Lanka 3.3.8 West Indies 3.3.9 Zimbabwe 3.4 Test matches 3.5 21st-century developments 3.6 Women's cricket 4 Play of the game 4.1 Field of play, equipment, and dress 4.2 Rules of the game 4.3 Runs 4.4 Extras 4.5 Overs 4.6 Methods of dismissal 5 Strategy and technique 5.1 Bowling 5.2 Batting 5.3 Fielding 5.4 Wicketkeeping 6 Additional Reading --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The Britannica structure is horrible and the result of their limited capacity, needing to cover everything in trivial detail in one article, so, for example, needing a section on cricket in each of the Test playing countries. I think deciding on whether to start with history or gameplay is a crucial decision - let's get some consensus... --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Article structure: Shall we start with history or with an explanation of what cricket is?

Views please. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's more sensible to define what it is we're talking about before discussing the history. But happy to be persuaded otherwise. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "definition", the rules or how the game is played? If it can be done without jargon, I'd be tempted to put history first as it will be more readable than many other sections and perhaps more of interest. However, can things such as the evolution of the bat of the change from under-arm to over-arm bowling be explained without putting the definition first? Nev1 (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I mean how the game is played in broad terms. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's kept brief and simple I think I could get behind it, and a later section could go into more detail. Nev1 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think that a brief explanation of the game should come first, followed by the history (which should be fairly short, with a "see also" link to the main history article for those who want more details). JH (talk page) 18:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with brief explanation then history. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Indef page semi protection

Is it worth reconsidering this? It's been in place a very long time. The move protection, I think, is totally justifiable as indef... but edit? --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The last time the page was without semi-protection was 26 July 2010 to 9 August 2010 when pending changes was in place instead. The history shows there was a fair amount of vandalism by several differnt new users and IPs. At the time the article was getting about 8,100 views a day and the figures are now 7,200 so I would expect vandalism would be similar levels. I don't think it's worth lifting the protection. Nev1 (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2012

A run is scored (a) so often as the batsmen, at any time while the ball is in play, have crossed and made good their ground from end to end. (b) when a boundary is scored. See Law 19 (Boundaries). (c) when penalty runs are awarded. See 6 below. (d) when Lost ball is called. See Law 20 (Lost ball).

Run out new rule: A bowler can do runt out a batsman if a batsman is out of his/her ground before the bowler bowls a ball. 82.31.66.79 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. It seems like this info is already in the article, or the linked one about the topic in hand. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 19:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2012

Add reference and quote from Douglas Adams' Life, the Universe, and Everything to the pop-culture subsection.

Quote[Searched Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy cricket; quick-searched Cricket]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy Earth is widely regarded with derision and scorn by most sentient beings in the galaxy. That most other races have shunned Earth is in part due to its primitive technological state and also for its invention of the game of cricket, an unfortunate product of racial memory that appears to make light of the horrendously genocidal Krikkit Wars, which right-thinking galactic citizens find immensely distasteful. Before the arrival of Ford Prefect and the Vogons, Earth's main form of extraterrestrial contact was with "teasers": bored rich kids who cruise the galaxy looking for planets yet to make interstellar contact, find some isolated spot, land in front of some credulous soul they know no one will ever believe, strut up and down in front of them with "silly antennas on their head" and make "beep-beep" noises at them. Ford regards this practice as "rather childish, really".

174.58.2.56 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of adding this. It is trivia, and it would substantially add to the length of an already long article. JH (talk page) 09:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. per JH. e^xtra999 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the IP would like us to add Adams' comments on cricket to the article on it. I find Adams hilarious, but, much as there are similarities between Wikipedia and the the Guide, there are also notable differences. One of which is that we wouldn't deliberately include this kind of non-encyclopedic material. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

lbw rule wrong

This short lbw explanation: "To be given out lbw, the ball must not bounce outside leg stump or, if the batsman made a genuine attempt to play the ball, outside off stump" is, in my understanding, possibly wrong. This would be right if "bounce" was defined as the hit on the batsman, but wrong, if "bounce" could be read as "pitch". (Only regarding the hit on the batsman it makes a difference if the batsman tried to strike. But the ball may pitch outside off stump and the batsman can be given out lbw, independent from him trying to bat or not, if the ball hit the batsman between the line of wickets. At least that's how I read the rules.) Now, this hinges of the definition of "bounce": If that can only be read as "hit", the wording was correct (but I doubt that, see Bouncer_(cricket). Maybe a modified wording could be "To be given out lbw, the ball must not pitch outside leg stump or, if the batsman made a genuine attempt to play the ball, hit the batsman outside the line of wickets". This is of course still incomplete, which is in the nature of a short description, but at least not faulty. I'm neither proficient enough in cricket nor in english to decide that, and someone else probably could find a better wording, so I open that to discussion. edited Skuckem (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. The wording of the lbw rule has been corrected by Py0alb. Skuckem (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

it lack ball energy and rules

The cricket differences with for e.g. baseball in especially rules and ball objections. If You see the most players have to use the ball in order to kick-out the wicket defender, or just "destroy" wicket". And in the baseball is - kind unusual for USA version of sport - even less "destroying" and the rules limits and fines deadly attacking the defender.

What is important and should be inserted? The energy of ball - the good player can throw the ball with energy of about 1 088.62169 kilograms (2400 lbs). For source check the USA, 2007 started by John Brenkus sport anatomy from Discovery Science. Or just do the counts. But if You see the play of course You can see the strength of it is big, because defenders have broken legs, etc.

That should be ignored, as the writer clearly does not know what, by international definition, energy actually is; also she does not know about significant figures in conversions beterrm different systems of units. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. It's best if you propose the exact text you want inserted, removed or changed. Btw, are you using Google translation to write your request? Some of it is a bit hard to parse. Rivertorch (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2012

There is a picture in 'run' of Brian Lara which shows that Brian Lara holds the record for highest score in both Tests and first-class cricket but the record of highest score in tests holds by Sachin Tendulkar. THE Rajiv (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Brian Lara's highest score in Tests is 400 and is the record. Sachin Tendulkar's highest score in Tests is 248, so the picture caption is correct. Sachin Tendulkar has scored the most runs in a career, but the caption refers to a single innings. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

T20 Ranking

New rankings have been declared by ICC officials.I've modified T20 ranking column.For latest ranking result see reference here.Thank You and Best Regards. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 14:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new structure

I've finally got round to applying the above consensus about having the gameplay before the history. We now need to decide what ought to be in the rest of the article. This needs to play off WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and comprehensiveness.

I suggest:

1. Rules and game-play
2. History
3. Types of matches
4. International structure
5. Spirit of the Game
6. In popular culture
7. See also
8. References
9. External links

In so doing I propose to get rid of the highly POV "distinctive elements" section, subsuming some of it into the game play and leaving other parts of it out altogether. The spirit of the game issue seems quite notable, especially given the impact the game has had on the English language. I've also ditched the Statistics section. The version as it currently appears is thoroughly unenlightening. Adding some records but not others will be POV. Open to comments and suggestions. --Dweller (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with getting rid of the "distinctive elements" section entirely. The nuanced effects of pitch and weather, and the individualistic nature of the game are absolutely crucial to understanding the nature of the sport and why it has such a large and passionate following around the world. If its POV then try and fix that instead of dumping it? Py0alb (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Effects of weather and pitch can and should be handled very briefly in the section that deals with the pitch. Saying they're distinctive elements is POV. --Dweller (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? Define distinctive, define element. Is the statement still accurate, relevant and backed up by statistical data? Do spinners do better in Asia and pace bowlers do better in South Africa? Yes. Is winning the toss in Test match more statistically significant than in, say, football? Yes. No longer POV. problem solved.

"Spirit of the Game" however is problematically POV. Does football not have a spirit of the game? Does baseball not have "unwritten rules". I don't think this is particularly distinctive Py0alb (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

One sentence summary

Many games can be described in one simple sentence (Tennis - keep the ball in the air longer than the other side'; golf - get the ball into the holes in the right order and in fewer moves than your opponents; snooker get the balls in the right sequence into the holes and prevent your opponent from doing so when it is their turn; football - score more goals than the other team, do not annoy the referee too much and the offside rule is badly designed etc) which enables a newby viewer to get at least some enjoyment out of watching the game. What is the sentence for cricket - everybody has a turn in knocking down the opponent's sticky wicket unless there is a leg in front of it and what else? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes! If you click here, you can read the opening sentences! Sorry that it's a sentence or two longer than you're looking for, but I'm sure you'll still be able to get the gist. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Score more runs that the other team. Or if you want the detailed explanation:

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!

— tea towel, http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/EXPLANATION/WHAT_IS_CRICKET.html

And I don't think you understand tennis very well. The-Pope (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Score more runs in the time it takes the opposition to dismiss 10 of your players than the opposition is able to score in the time it takes for you to dismiss 10 of theirs. Py0alb (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Time usually has little to do with it. What's the one sentence description of baseball? It should be similar. HiLo48 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Baseball: Score more runs in the time it takes the opposition to dismiss 3 of your players than the opposition is able to score in the time it takes for you to dismiss 3 of theirs. Repeat 9 times.

This is as simplified an outline of the fundamental means by which cricket and baseball progress as you're likely to find. They're complex games, you would need at least two extra sentences to explain what "runs" are and how you "dismiss" someome. Py0alb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary: you cannot sum up cricket in this manner. Moreoever, there are different types of cricket, results in Test match cricket are different in description from results in ODI and T20(I). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This article, as many on WP do, suffers from what I'm going to start calling Wikipediaitus. This is not specific to cricket but I'm going to pick on this article tonight because it's something I wanted to learn and basically found it too time-consuming with the way the article is written.

I'm an American who knows baseball (the baseball article suffers the equivilant problem for people who know nothing about baseball, I'm sure) and the Cricket article simply doesn't really teach someone who's trying to learn the basics of the sport and how it's played very much. The article is more aimed at pleasing the pedant and getting an exacting account of every detail of the sport, and seeing how it stands up to the scrutiny of a reader who already knows the reader. For instance the opening...

Cricket is a bat-and-ball game played between two teams of 11 players on a field, at the centre of which is a rectangular 22-yard long pitch. One team bats, trying to score as many runs as possible while the other team bowls and fields, trying to dismiss..." etc etc

Ok what's a dismissal how do they get dismissed? (click into dismissal article)

In the sport of cricket, a dismissal occurs when the batsman is out... That explains nothing.. (scroll down..) Ahh "methods of dismissal".. surely that will explain it.

"A batsman can be dismissed in a number of ways, the most common being bowled, caught, leg before wicket (LBW), stumped and run out. Much rarer are hit wicket, hit the ball twice, handled the ball, obstructing the field and timed out."

Oh what? So what are all those things.. Bowled? caught? LBW? I still am not knowing the basic actions a defense will take to stop the offense.. just more terminology.. "If a bowler's delivery hits the stumps and a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, the striker" etc etc.. This is too complicated just to learn the basic gameplay of a sport.. There's no point in even bothering to explain the basic elements of a sport if it's only explained with the maze of terminologies that are unique to the sport.. If the article is going to be useful to anyone, it's going to start with laying out the sport in very simple terminology. You set up three pegs in the grass... The goal of the pitcher is to do this... (when he's attempting to do this, it's called this).. the goal of the batsman is this (this is called...) The people who understand all the terminologies are only reading to see if they can fix a mistake and the people who don't know all the terminilogies aren't getting anything out of the article... Dancindazed (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything you just wrote. This article somehow ended up on my watchlist some while ago, but I can't make head or tail of it. The article on the Simple English Wikipedia does a much better job of conveying the basics of the game. I wonder if we couldn't do that here and maintain the current level of detail and terminology. Rivertorch (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And I disagree with almost everything he said. This isn't Cricket compared to baseball and how would references to baseball help those millions who understand neither cricket nor baseball. We are simply not going to use terms like pegs, pitcher etc. If you want to learn the game, them you have to learn the terminology, and every time a cricket specific term is used, it is linked to its detailed explanation. There is even a nice clear photo of a batsman being bowled and the bail being removed next to the description of what being bowled is. And yes, we have to mention the bail because unlike a baseball strike, the ball doesn't just have to pass through a certain zone, but actually must dislodge the bail. It isn't a simple sport, the simplest description is what we have there already..."a bat-and-ball game played between two teams of 11 players on a field...trying to score as many runs as possible..." The-Pope (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No one is asking that it be compared to baseball. The point is that the only people to whom the explanation of the sport makes sense is the people who already understand the sport. Don't you see this as a problem??? Who exactly is the explanation of the sport meant for? I described a clear example of the problem, even using the method you describe. Look at what I wrote. You said you can click on each term. But I clicked into dismissal, and it took me to a page that did not give any kind of good idea of what generally occurs during a dismissal. It said a dismissal is an out (not helpful) and in the methods of dismissal section, it used more jargon that you have to click into. It is possible for something to be explained without jargon. The jargon was invented after the sport. When explaining the sport, pretend like the jargon hasn't been invented yet. Explain the jargon as you go. It has to be thought of like you're explaining it to someone, person to person, who has never seen the sport before.. If it's not going to be done that way, then the article is nothing more than a bunch of people writing to each other about what they already know. And that is not useful.. Dancindazed (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Dancindazed - I think you're being stubbornly obdurate here. The Baseball article really has similar problems. It uses the terms runs and bases in the lead without definition. It mentions a thrown ball, with no explanation of the restrictions on such "throwing". (Where is it thrown from? Who throws it? A team mate?) In truth, explaining complex games such as baseball and cricket simply cannot be done in a single sentence. The hyperlinks available in modern tools such as Wikipedia probably give us the best tools ever available for doing so (apart from visual ones, which we can only use in a limited way). Let's just do our best in both cases. (And you MUST accept what others say about the linguistic differences re words such as offence and defence.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Too many pictures

This article has too many pictures, many of them placed awkwardly disrupting the layout with no relevance to the section theyre placed in. It seems everyone wants their favourite cricketer featured under the guise of holding a record. For a start, I would recommend getting rid of the 20/20 recordholders whose achievements arent really that significant given the relatively tiny total number of games played. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.96.196 (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary in the Lede

I think that this can be improved -- with a one-paragraph summary of the game (Test match). (I've been editing Comparison of cricket and baseball). I'll have a go over the next week or two. Would anyone prefer that I post a draft in talk, or shall I just edit boldly? Alanf777 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to review your changes one at a time, because I don't think they're accurate. You have made the lead more unintelligibile to the unfamiliar reader as well. Py0alb (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you've reverted most of my changes. I admit that I'm concentrating on Test cricket and not those new-fangled limited-innings formats.

eg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cricket&diff=551930631&oldid=551930574

WAS : During cricket matches, the quality of the ball changes to a point where it is no longer usable, and during this decline its properties alter and thus influence the match. (This implies that ONE ball is used for the entire match).

I WROTE : During the innings the quality and roughness of the ball changes, and thus influence the match. New balls are used at the start of each innings (LAW 5.3 -- admittedly at the request of either captain), and may then be replaced after 80 overs (LAW 5.4 -- not less than 75 overs). If a ball is lost or no longer usable before that, then it is replaced with a similarly worn old ball. (LAW 5.5)

SUGGESTED Change : During play the quality and roughness of the ball changes, and thus influence the match. New balls are usually used at the start of each innings (LAW 5.3), and may then be replaced after 75 overs (LAW 5.4). If a ball is lost or no longer usable then it is replaced with a similarly worn old ball. (LAW 5.5) Alanf777 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Change 2 : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cricket&diff=551969269&oldid=551930667 (Comment deleted : I only saw later that you'd reverted to my version) Alanf777 (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Change 3 : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cricket&diff=551930574&oldid=551864568

I ADDED : The entire field can be mowed before the start of each day's play. (LAW 10.1.a) The pitch can cleared of debris and rolled before each day's play, and in the interval between innings [Rolling: Law 10.1.(a) Debris: Law 10.2.(a)(i,ii and iii)] But the pitch cannot be watered after the game starts. (Law 10.4).

Everything I wrote is a reasonable summary, supported by the laws. Is there any particular reason you deleted it all? If these don't apply to limited-overs then add a comment. Alanf777 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The lede itself -- you said "You have made the lead more unintelligibile to the unfamiliar reader as well. Py0alb".

The lede is a mess and needs to be completely rewritten. It is unintelligible even to a reader familiar with cricket. I added two rather important elements, which you have deleted:

a) "attempting to dismiss all the batsmen" -- which (in multi-day matches) is often more important than "prevent the batting team scoring runs" : if you DON'T dismiss them all then you have a DRAW -- See the recent England v New Zealand test). I agree that since this is one of the main differences between multi-day and limited-over cricket it should be in a separate sentence.

b) That BOTH batsmen have to run, exchanging positions. The current lede says "enable him (SINGULAR) to run to the other end of the pitch and thus accumulate runs". No mention of what the other batsman does. Alanf777 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alan First I'd like to say thank you for your efforts in trying to improve this page. I'm sorry that we don't agree on some issues. Lets try and work together and beat out our differences here.

Firstly, its not just test cricket vs limited overs cricket, this page is about cricket in general - both the professional, the formal amateur, and the informal game, hence any lines that only really relevant or accurate for one particular format should really be reserves for the article about that format. That is the reason I removed your otherwise perfectly acceptable comments about the changing of the ball after 80 overs. I'm happy with your suggested compromise, perhaps New balls are OFTEN used at the start of each innings - seeing as I have played in several leagues - both 20 and 40 over - that use the same ball for the entire game. This is probably the case in >50% of cricket matches around the world.

LEAD: (surely not lede?)

The lead is written as such to try and give a completely unfamiliar reader a very basic and holistic understanding of roughly how cricket works. It describes the setting (2 teams of 11 players, a rectangular pitch on a round field) the basic macroscopic progress of play (one team bats, the other team fields, then they swap, maybe twice) and the basic microscopic means of play (one fellow delivers the ball, the other chap hits it and tries to score runs, he keeps going until he is dismissed). To do this, it tries to keep things as simple as possible and use as little terminology as possible. There is plenty of information further down the page for people who want more detail - as well as plenty of links. Hence the deliberate avoidance of attempting to explain at this point what the other batsman does, or indeed the subtle and rare circumstances in which the taking of wickets takes absolute precedence over preventing the other team from scoring runs.

Py0alb (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you -- I took a day off. I accept your offer to beat out our differences -- figuratively of course, because cricket bats are lethal weapons, and stumps (stakes) are particularly lethal in Transylvania. (And I don't care if it's US lede or or UK lead.) Alanf777 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Runners

Runners have been outlawed in International cricket since 2011 - can this be updated?

It is under the Batting section:

currently says: In the event of an injured batsman being fit to bat but not to run, the umpires and the fielding captain may allow another member of the batting side to be a runner. The runner's only task is to run between the wickets instead of the injured batsman. The runner is required to wear and carry exactly the same equipment as the incapacitated batsman. It is possible for both batsmen to have runners.

should say: In the event of an injured batsman being fit to bat but not to run, the umpires and the fielding captain were previously able to allow another member of the batting side to be a runner. The runner's only task was to run between the wickets instead of the injured batsman and was required to wear and carry exactly the same equipment as the incapacitated batsman. As of 2011 the ICC outlawed the use of runners as they felt this was being abused.

Source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/521356.html

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstymob (talk • contribs) 03:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Maproom (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Criterion for naming pages

In this discussion, someone wrote "When the term Cricket is used, it is generally refers to the sport." (as opposed to the insect (see Cricket (insect)). I'd have guessed that more often people would think of the insect rather than of the sport, but probably I'm biased and I would think the usual denizens of this present talk page would be quite biased, in view of the page's topic. But this raises a question: Which criterion should be used in deciding whether to make this a disambiguation page or to treat the sport or the insect as the "main meaning"? Should it be (1) What people generally think of when they hear the word; or should it be (2) What people are more likely to be searching for when they enter the word "cricket" in the "search" box? Those are two different things. (Maybe I'll also post this in some Wikipedia discussion forum that doesn't have the same expected bias that this page would have.) Michael Hardy (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: Someone mentioned that under "cricket" the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as referring to the sport before giving the "insect" definition. But I seem to recall that the general practice of the OED is different from that of most dictionaries, in that it puts the definitions in chronological order. In other words, in some past century the word referred to the game but was not yet used to refer to the insect. If that is true, it would mean I was mistaken when, at about the age of 12, I learned that there is a sport called cricket and wondered why it was named after an insect. But at any rate, if it's true that OED has such a policy on chronology, that would mean that the OED is _not_ saying that's the principal meaning, but only that it's the chronologically earlier meaning. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There are six links at the top of this page for previous move requests. All have opposed the move. Counting by "most people" is always going to be skewed by the large number of Americans who don't think of the sport, and the even bigger number of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who don't think of the insect, but are probably less represented on this website. The majority of contributors here would be English or Australian, who are vastly outnumbered by readers from other countries. I generally find that when most people think about what they believe "most people" think, they actually think mainly about what they themselves think. We are all biased, either for or against. I don't think cricket has dropped in popularity, nor the insect grown in popularity, so I'm not sure if another move proposal is warranted. The-Pope (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It's strange that you're bringing up the topic of another page-move proposal. At any rate, you certainly didn't even hint at the topic of my question. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Michael, I'm not sure precisely what your question is. You made a lot of comments in your two initial posts, and I reckon The-Pope has responded to several. Thoughts on cricket are obviously coloured by someone's cultural background. You do seem to be basing your comments on what "people" think. Which people? HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To repeat my question verbatim from my initial posting above, but this time set entirely in bold:

Which criterion should be used in deciding whether to make this a disambiguation page or to treat the sport or the insect as the "main meaning"? Should it be (1) What people generally think of when they hear the word; or should it be (2) What people are more likely to be searching for when they enter the word "cricket" in the "search" box? Those are two different things.

Michael Hardy (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:DAB is clear that usage and long-term significance should be used as the guidelines for determining a primary topic. In terms of real world tests, cricket (insect) is viewed about 1200 times per day, cricket (sport) about 6000, so even if you assume half of cricket (insect) double clicked from going to cricket (sport) first, it's 4-5 times as many views for the sport. Long term significance is subject to everyone's cultural and personal biases. The-Pope (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

And Michael, you would have to be a lot more specific about which people you're referring to. This encyclopaedia is a global one. Readers of English Wikipedia come from almost every country in the world. We need to decide whether we're aiming to satisfy only the majority of readers for whom English is their first language, which would massively bias us towards the USA, or anyone who uses English occasionally. When discussing the sport cricket the second becomes very problematic. There are 1.2 billion people in India. An awful lot of them are cricket fans. An awful lot of them speak and read at least a bit of English. Because cricket (sport) evolved in the British Empire, English is the language of that game too, so cricket fans everywhere are going to look for English articles. It's pretty clear from the style of editing we see that a lot of contributors to cricket articles today are from the sub-continent. So try again. Who are your "people"? HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The insect is properly called a grasshopper, with 'cricket' being a type of grasshopper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Not according to Cricket (insect) ("Crickets... are insects somewhat related to grasshoppers, and more closely related to katydids or bush crickets... and Weta"). --BDD (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Does WP:primary topic apply any longer?

Right now, I don't know why the sport achieves more popularity and significance than several-millenia-year-old insect. If the sport meets both criteria, perhaps shall we ignore those criteria in favor of WP:PRECISION? However, this ain't an official move request yet. Instead, it is a precedessor as part of preparation. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you would get very far with a move request (see above and archives for past attempts). The sport achieves "more popularity and significance" than the insect because, well, sports are generally more popular and more significant (culturally, if not ecologically) than insects. I can't really provide figures, but I would imagine the amount of writing on the sport, both academic and non-academic, outweighs the writing on the insect by a gigantic amount. IgnorantArmies 08:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• I was looking into this too, George. Last month, this page had 166,831 views compared to 73,266 combined for those entries on Cricket (disambiguation) that had articles. So by that measure, at least, the sport appears to be "more likely than all the other topics combined" to be the topic sought for this term. These numbers could be skewed by the sport being at the base title, although even if we assumed all 73,266 of those other views typed in "Cricket" first, that still leaves 93,565 who came here and apparently got what they were looking for.

On the other hand, this does seem like a case where no topic has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value." Despite the views, I really don't think there's a primary topic here. And the {{oldmoves}} on this page is horribly biased, documenting every little discussion that has occurred and calling them opposed proposals instead of just sticking to the RMs. I'm afraid this is a lost cause. A new RM would likely end up being a popularity contest, and by appealing to page views, the opposition would have a policy-based argument anyway. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I must prepare the next RM. The last RM was 2007 (or 2008 if you don't limit to green boxes). Shall I add specific sources or explain policies and guidelines and common sense? George Ho (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend considering a RM at the point where the insect is notable enough to have its own portal with a team of hundreds of dedicated editors. See you in roughly 2316. Py0alb (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013

hgjhgun 144.36.188.222 (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ummm. No? Harrias ^talk 20:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary / Format Section

I'm extending this section so that somebody who reads it could actually follow the game, introducing some key concepts and terms. I'm editing it paragraph by paragraph ... please don't do any edits until I've done. I'll post here. Alanf777 (talk)

Done !! Note that I put a lot of terms in italics -- they could be made into wiki links. Alanf777 (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually know what the "Format" section is meant to hold. (eg Baseball doesn't have one). I'm going to take that sub-header out, so it's all "summary". Then there will be a bit of replication, so I'll clean up duplicates. As before, I'll put up/take down a "please do not edit" comment while it's under way. Alanf777 (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point of a 1-sentence summary at this position of the article. There's already a short summary in the lead . I didn't see the warning-comment until I had already merged the two sections, so I undid it. I'm still working on the basis that we need a summary section which actually explains the game. (Also see my earlier talk on the lede/lead). Alanf777 (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I still think that everything that I wrote belongs in the summary. Maybe the "format" section should summarize the main forms of cricket -- test (series and match), 3-day or 5-day "first class", ODI, twenty-twenty .... Alanf777 (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014

now bowler can do run out a batsman if batsman is out of ground before bowler bowls a ball 111.68.105.74 (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There is already a sentence "The batsman who is not on strike may be run out by the bowler if he leaves his crease before the bowler bowls,..." under the section #Dismissals. What else are you suggesting? Please suggest the required changes in X to Y form···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 06:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: "innings"

In cricket, is a turn of both teams at bat a plural of inning?GinAndChronically (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes.

(Now I await those purists who will point out the exceptions.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

phuwee for purists. But why? Just plain tradition? Or is there a story behind it?GinAndChronically (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

'Innings' is the singular and plural form of the noun, like the word sheep. 'Inning' isn't a valid word in modern British English or the world of cricket, though it looks like it may have been in the past. Mmitchell10 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: "Test batsman"

In another article this term is used. What does it mean?GinAndChronically (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It literally means someone who has played as a Batsman in Test cricket. Both those links should help. It probably needs to be emphasised that, although everybody bats, cricketers tend to specialise as either batsmen or bowlers, and often only those who specialise in batting are described as "Test batsmen". HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please correct the rankings as the one given in this article are not updatedDhoom0608 (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2014

The first occurrence of "MCC" should be changed to "the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)". 72.251.111.8 (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the way it already is, in the third paragraph of the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes

Look at the fifth photo: can you see a 9 inches ball ? (or is it somewhere to 3 inches or less ) ? Look at the fourteenth photo: is the blade not more than 4.25 inches from the total of 38 inches (I'd say it is about 27 inches)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.158.1 (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Scoring -- "Century"

For those that are not in the know what does it and "centuries" (obviously the plural) mean? Thanks!66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

In the sport of cricket, a century is a score of 100 or more runs in a single innings by a batsman.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That is to be expected and known by a few people but is it explained in the article. If it is not universally known then it had best be part of the mother article so that the unfamiliarity one might have can easily be rooted out with a link. It is the least that can be accommodated much the same as scoring in tennis which I have been known to play but have even greater confusion.66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hacked?

My account appears to have been hacked as I did not make the last two edits on this article, thanks for your understanding. --- TheChampionMan1234 01:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Update, I have changed my password, but I don't know where I can go to report suspicious activity on my account, please help me. - TheChampionMan1234 01:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2015

Please change the description of Muralitharan_bowling_to_Adam_Gilchrist.jpg "A ball being bowled. From back to front [...]" to "A ball being bowled. From top to bottom [...]" Carlgo11 (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually think front to back is more clear. Any other opinions? Stickee (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't think it matters one way or the other. That said, there shouldn't be an open edit request until the edit to be made is agreed upon. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Stumping

In the article there is the following statement:"Owing to his position directly behind the striker, the wicket-keeper has a good chance of getting a batsman out caught off a fine edge from the bat. He is the only player who can get a batsman out stumped." Is it, in fact true, according to the Laws of the game that the WK is the only player who can be credited with a stumping? I've never heard of anyone else being credited with one but I'm sure it could happen. AFAIK a stumping occurs when the player misses the ball and a fielder (always the keeper in my experience) knocks off the bails while the player is out of his crease. However, it seems to me that a slip fielder to a spinner could stump a batsman (just one possible way it could happen). If this were to happen would it be run out or stumped? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.229.37 (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

See http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-39-stumped/ Mmitchell10 (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"A batsman may retire from an innings without being dismissed, usually after reaching a milestone like a hundred runs"

Really? I have never seen this happen in professional cricket, except in the case of "retired hurt" or a declaration. The only other references to this I could see on the net were reproductions of Wiki. Maybe this is technically true, but it is so uncommon I don't think has a place in a basic run down of the format of the game. I think it should be removed.Faff296 (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

See Retired out. More common than obstructing the field, timed out, hit the ball twice, and handled the ball, I would wager. Twice in international matches, quite common in warm-up matches and tour matches – I've come across it on several scorecards. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it comes in a general run-down of how cricket works between a statement about when the ball is live and dead and what happens when a dismissed batsman leaves the field. Getting out handled the ball is more common than retired out, but it would still be odd to have an isolated statement mentioning this fact in the middle of this section. If you are new to cricket and reading this section to get an idea about it, you would assume this is a much more important and common feature of the game than it is.Faff296 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"In case of a no ball or a wide the batsman can choose to strike the ball, earning runs in addition to the fixed penalty. If he does so he can only be dismissed by being run out." Wide should be removed here, or noted that a struck ball cannot be a wide.

Results reporting for limited overs matches

Why are the results for limited overs matches reported in wickets, instead of overs? (See, for example, the 2011 World Cup, reported as "India won by 6 wickets" in the Cricket World Cup article.) While true, it suggests that India won by a wide margin, when in fact they hit their target runs at 48.2 overs; "India won by 1.4 overs" would be a much more accurate description. I suspect that the answer is that reporting wins by wickets, rather than overs, is a hold-over from unlimited-overs matches, and I don't expect Wikipedia to change the way that these results are described, but I thought I would at least raise the issue. Rks13 (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitely just tradition. It's becoming more common to mention both wickets and balls/overs remaining, but it becomes even more ludicrous when you consider that the points table tie-breaker in tournaments such as the current world cup ignores wickets completely and only uses runs and overs. So NZ, who beat Australia by only 1 wicket, but with lots of overs to spare, got a huge run-rate benefit, but the actual margin was actually very small. The-Pope (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2015

139.190.152.180 (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. We're not mind readers, please specify what you want changed. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015

please change "not to the striker's individual total for which runs must be scored off the bat.ghhjj" to "not to the striker's individual total for which runs must be scored off the bat." 39.50.203.99 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015

Please change:

the last World Cup in 2011 was won by the co-hosts, India. The next World Cup will hosted by Australia and New Zealand in 2015.

to

the last World Cup in 2015 was won by the co-hosts, Australia. The next World Cup will be hosted by England and Wales in 2019.

Recpiper (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2016

Nation	Governing body	Member since	Current Test rankings	Current ODI rankings	Current T20 rankings
Australia	Cricket Australia	15 July 1909	2	1	8
Bangladesh	Bangladesh Cricket Board	26 June 2000	9	7	10
England	England and Wales Cricket Board	15 July 1909	5	6	4
India	Board of Control for Cricket in India	31 May 1926	1	3	1
New Zealand	New Zealand Cricket	31 May 1926	6	2	5
Pakistan	Pakistan Cricket Board	28 July 1953	4	8	7
South Africa	Cricket South Africa	15 July 1909A	3	4	6
Sri Lanka	Sri Lanka Cricket	21 July 1981	7	5	3
West Indies	West Indies Cricket Board	31 May 1926	8	9	2
Zimbabwe	Zimbabwe Cricket	6 July 1992	10	12	14

Nation	Governing body	Member since	Current Test rankings	Current ODI rankings	Current T20 rankings
Australia	Cricket Australia	15 July 1909	2	1	2
Bangladesh	Bangladesh Cricket Board	26 June 2000	9	7	10
England	England and Wales Cricket Board	15 July 1909	5	6	4
India	Board of Control for Cricket in India	31 May 1926	1	2	8
New Zealand	New Zealand Cricket	31 May 1926	6	4	7
Pakistan	Pakistan Cricket Board	28 July 1953	4	8	5
South Africa	Cricket South Africa	15 July 1909A	3	3	6
Sri Lanka	Sri Lanka Cricket	21 July 1981	7	5	3
West Indies	West Indies Cricket Board	31 May 1926	8	9	1
Zimbabwe	Zimbabwe Cricket	6 July 1992	10	12	14

PLEASE CHANGE THE FIRST TABLE WITH THE SECOND TABLE MENTIONED BY ME BECAUSE THE FIRST TABLE IS NOT UP TO DATE. Iam Manu21 (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Although your request was confusing - it seemed to ask for the second table to be inserted - which is what was already there - Arjayay (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2016

182.48.72.18 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2016 (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. Cannolis (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"The game of cricket and its objectives"

Is this section really necessary? It was recently added by user BlackJack, who has made other major changes to the article, including the lead. While the article is in need of an overhaul, I think BlackJack's edits have only made matters worse, so reverted and asked to discuss per WP:BRD. I explained that "this section seems pointless to me - a repetition of other sections ... This article is already bloated." He reinstated the material, saying that it was a work in progress. I reverted again and asked him to work on the material in a sandbox and/or collaborate before adding it back. He refused and wrote on my talk page: "Mind telling me who the hell you think you are? If you object to some obviously genuine work that someone is doing, you go to them and discuss it with them. You do not behave like an arrogant knowall who summarily deletes work. Restore that edit now or this goes to ANI as a serious complaint about your attitude." Yes, I would like a discussion, hence the BRD. I guess this will be a different kind of BRD because BlackJack's "work in progress" is still live. Anyway, it would be nice to receive other editors' input so a consensus can develop. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this when I wrote the piece immediately below. I suggest that as my topic explains my actions and objectives, you close this one and continue the discussion below where I will be happy to address any points you have. Okay, I'm sorry it I got annoyed with you but the correct procedure with reversion (unless it is obvious vandalism or is a minor edit that is clearly incorrect) is to first contact the editor, especially if it is an experienced editor who is clearly bona fide, is to contact them on their talk page or on the article's talk page and explain your issues. If you had reverted my input a third time, it would have gone to 3RR and that is not something I want to get involved in when I am trying to improve an article which, as you say yourself, is in need of an overhaul. Anyway, please see what I've written below and I would appreciate your help. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We're getting cross-posts now. Can we please stop and move everything to the "under construction" topic below so we're not going in several different directions? Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Under construction

You will see that I have added the construction tag to the article. Given that this is the key article in the whole cricket project, it leaves a lot to be desired and needs someone to restructure it and edit out all the unnecessary detail and even trivia that it has accumulated over the years since it was last completely revised. At first, it may seem that some information is being duplicated but that will be a temporary situation as the new structure is implemented and a decision is then taken on what to salvage and what to reject from the older sections being superseded. Please note that "under construction" means what it says and so this will not look like a finished article until the work is completed. I'm more than happy for anyone with sufficient knowledge and useful sources to assist but please note that I am looking to describe the game of cricket to readers who are unfamiliar with it, which means that a lot of "extra baggage" such as I have already removed from the history section must go. The place for that stuff is in History of cricket and similar articles.

One thing I have already done is to ensure there is a link from the intro and from the new "game and objectives" to each of the project's "top importance" subjects, which are the only ones allowed to have articles in Category:Cricket itself, all as agreed by the CRIC project. We need to make sure that all those subjects get a fair hearing in this article as they are the next stage for new students of the game.

I'm happy to answer any questions. Note, however, that I am by no means full-time on WP and may be absent for a few days now and again, but I will try and do something positive and useful with the article. It is no good people just picking at little bits now and again, however well-intentioned they might be and however well they might process each little bit. The article needs a complete overhaul. I doubt if anyone else will volunteer (but please do so if you are inclined) so I'm prepared to take it on. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting issues here. If there's a major overhaul in progress it might be worth a wait and see how long that might take, but I would tend to agree that there needs to be care taken wrt potential bloat and also misleading stuff - I might argue, for example, that I can play cricket easily with one other person; it's not formal, competitive cricket, but it's cricket. Perhaps that sort of thing needs to be more prominent - that's a structural issue that certainly needs addressing and, I think, might resolve some of your concerns once that sort of thing is looked at.

One way around this might be to farm off sections to other articles (possibly the rules bit for example?) and/or rationalise the other articles we have. For example, there is an article on Forms of cricket, one on First-class cricket etc... This article needs to be very carefully structured to avoid a lot of the repetitive stuff - and possibly some of the sections can be reduced a little in size. It might be that some of that content can go to those articles as well - they aren't always that good and there's a fair bit of mess between some of them. I'd give people a chance to sort that first, but it's certainly a factor that is well worth us looking at in the short to medium term. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

BlackJack. I suggestion if I may. Firstly I agree the article was looking as though it was suffering from a bit of edit entropy, so yes I agree it needed some attention, but doing it in main space for such a large and well known subject matter was always going to get (adversely) noticed. So my suggestions are definitely do it in a sandbox somewhere, but clearly and openly accessible to all to find and watch, engage the wikicommunity to offer suggestions by creating a to-do list here, and tick off the items as you get them done ({{done}} always looks good), rather than potentially isolate other editors, get them to also share in owning the outcome this way. Congrats for taking the lead but you do not want to be seen as WP:OWNing it either. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Post script: The above if I may is all the more important if you are going to be absent for a couple of days at a time every so often, so that other editors know things are being done orderly and not just forgotten half way done. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Aoziwe. Thanks for your suggestions. On reflection, and given the concerns of Happy Waldo, I will take the "game and objectives" section away and develop it separately, bringing it back when I'm also in a position to remove the stuff it's replacing. I will continue to remove surplus stuff from individual sections, as I've already done with some of the history. I agree there can sometimes be a fine line between WP:BOLD and WP:OWN. Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest reverting and relocating to a sandbox. We can't have weeks of under construction notices on such an important and prominent article. Py0alb (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

With regards to the work as it stands, the order is a bit of a mess. We have, for example, two separate sections on the pitch and playing conditions that repeat each other. From browsing other sports pages, I believe the standard order is roughly: introduction, etymology, history, rules and gameplay, professional competitions, amateur competitions, any other relevant information. Should we stick to this format? Py0alb (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"The bowler's intention is to both prevent the scoring of runs and to dismiss the batsman, at which point he has to leave the field and another teammate replaces him at the crease."

I think this sentence should be changed as if you are unfamiliar with cricket you may think that the above could mean that the bowler has to leave the field, but I think it intends to say that the batsman has to leave the field after being dismissed.

Cheers Mark

Markwothe (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1300.html#1597
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130311210212/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/ to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/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) 07:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2016

Redberry76 (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Can i write about cricket. Redberry76 (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2016 (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. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2016

117.240.207.130 (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: Blank request Topher385 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20060211223400/http://www.lords.org:80/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-31-timed-out,57,AR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-31-timed-out,57,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) 09:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

Cricket was invented by Naresh Kurapati in the year 1730 Andrewmckinnis (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. Kosack (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2017

Brad matthews (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2017 (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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017

2405:204:4307:EA99:8CC7:AF5C:C679:A86B (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2017 (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. — IVORK _Discuss 12:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5laxwhCZO?url=http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportsHistorian/2000/sh201e.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportsHistorian/2000/sh201e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218143402/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-23-dead-ball%2C49%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-23-dead-ball%2C49%2CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121125070200/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-30-bowled%2C56%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-30-bowled%2C56%2CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121225124326/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-32-caught%2C58%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-32-caught%2C58%2CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080831051417/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-36-leg-before-wicket%2C62%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-36-leg-before-wicket%2C62%2CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919121625/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-38-run-out%2C64%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-38-run-out%2C64%2CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211223032/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-35-hit-wicket%2C61%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-35-hit-wicket%2C61%2CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613015706/http://lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-34-hit-the-ball-twice%2C60%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-34-hit-the-ball-twice%2C60%2CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208034512/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-37-obstructing-the-field%2C63%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-37-obstructing-the-field%2C63%2CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211223413/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-33-handled-the-ball%2C59%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-33-handled-the-ball%2C59%2CAR.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-31-timed-out%2C57%2CAR.html
• 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/20120509112013/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/spirit/promoting-the-spirit-of-cricket%2C140%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/spirit/promoting-the-spirit-of-cricket%2C140%2CAR.html

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) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Risks

The number of deaths and injuries should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.160 (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

See List of fatal accidents in cricket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.160 (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2017

In the line "a run-out occurs," run-out links to the incorrect article.

It links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-out when it should link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_out 24.22.180.118 (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you very much. Would you like to join WP and the cricket project? Jack | ^{talk page} 07:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Already done Izno (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2017

Afghanistan and Ireland have been made full members whereas the status of affiliate members has been removed.All previous affiliate members have been converted to associate members. 115.112.14.154 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2017 (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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction to this article is a long-term problem. It has just been subject to extensive revision and it is proposed that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Cricket should seek to achieve WP:CONSENSUS re its structure, format and content. Please do NOT alter the introduction while this discussion is in progress apart from very minor changes. All interested parties are welcome at the discussion. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory number of dismissal types

The "Bowling and dismissal" section says "There are ten ways in which a batsman can be dismissed", but then immediately proceeds to list eleven ways. The special case of retiring out should probably be included in the count. Ted.tem.parker (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ted.tem.parker Hello, Ted. That is well spotted. There were a couple of errors in that paragraph and I've hopefully corrected it now to make it clear that "retired out" is, shall we say, a de facto form of dismissal. I've cited Law 2 which deals with batsmen retiring. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017

119.160.119.239 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2017 (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. nihlus kryik (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Once Upon A Time...

...there was an article called cricket which had featured status on WP. Sadly, it fell from Grace (no, not that one – he's spinning in his grave) and was demoted to start-class. This calamity occurred almost nine years ago and, since then, cricket has been wandering in the wiki-wilderness. By June 2017, it was a candidate for the title of Worst Article on WP. Efforts have been made to restore some of cricket's credibility and improve it to B-class standard at least. I'm confident that this has been achieved and that the article now has adequate coverage and accuracy; referencing and citations; use of English; structure; navigation and supporting materials.

The question is: can we improve it to higher standards and ultimately get it back onto the site's front page as "today's featured article"?

I can't say I'm too interested in the FA/GA processes personally and, normally, I take them or leave them. Cricket, however, is our flagship article and, if we had just one and only one featured article, this is the one it should be. If anyone else is interested in a Cricket For FA campaign, I'll be happy to work with you. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there is mileage in this, but from a FA point-of-view, our biggest problem would be sourcing. We would need top quality sources to cover everything, and I'm not too sure personally what the best sources would be, nor if we could get hold of them all. Perhaps a starting point would be to make a list of the best sources that we would need? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Very good point, Sarastro. That's one of the main concerns I have too because, at present, the article relies heavily on the MCC Laws site for verification. That's fine for B-class standard but there has to be a limit. I think we would need a wide selection of Wisden editions, to be sure, and I would hope to eradicate any usage of CA and CI. I'll have a think about sources and, as you say, a list would be useful.

As regards the structure, I decided that the introduction must drive the article and I deliberately tailored the introduction so that it mentions all of the cricket project's "top importance" subjects. These topics must be in the article for the whole to be meaningful. Anything else was removed. The biggest problem resulting from long-term neglect was the amount of trivia, hero-worship, out of context material and downright rubbish that had accumulated. There were some good things like the Murali-Gilchrist image with overlay which I could use but, all in all, if you look back to what it was like in June this year: shudder!

Glad to hear from you again and thanks for your help. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

For the structure, I'd be inclined to steal what we can from the baseball article, which is already a FA and has been for a while. One source that might be good for this kind of article would be Barclay's World of Cricket, but we'd need others. For the history sections, I'm not sure there has been a "general" history of cricket since Vic Marks did the Wisden Illustrated History in the 1980s (I can get hold of both of these books). One area we might struggle to source well would be Twenty20 stuff as I'm not sure that there has been much in print yet, and we really should avoid a lot of the dross out there written about it; we need a kind of detached overview, and I'm not sure where we would find one. Otherwise, the more I think about this, the more I think it might be possible. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I've got Barclays (1982) but not the Marks book. For T20, the best sources may be the 21st century Wisdens. Much of the history can be covered by books about specific periods or topics – S&B, Birley, Bowen, Harte, Guha and others, but we do need to get away from the online stuff where history is concerned. I really like that baseball article and, you're right, we could learn a lot from that (actually, our infobox mirrors theirs so perhaps someone has already borrowed from it). Jack | ^{talk page} 14:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

School and cricket forms in usage around the world

• Kwik cricket is not mentioned and it has more formality in Australia and New Zealand schools. The Kwik page also hosts a better selection of forms of cricket. Altogether, cricket is a game(not only a sport), and these games are not unremarkable. I can understand the disregard held by sporting associations in editing their documents, but I cannot understand this in regards to an encyclopedia of interest. Games of cricket are commonly adjusted to suit children - 'six and out'.
• Additionally, the usage of batting nets for training has escaped notice on the page. This is a significant installation on many school and park fields across Australia. It may be of interest for game players from other countries.
• A quick search shows that rubber and plastic are not mentioned. The use of softer balls is a school and field possibility in Australia at least.
• Related sports are being restricted to two. Any chance of adding in everything else?
• The schools cricket link has been linked to a history of English amateurs and nothing to do with modern cricket in schools across the globe. That's vandalism, isn't it?

In summary, the school cricket section looks unwritten and isn't an encyclopedic section mentioning all the forms of cricket as a game. The section doesn't have the tone of a Wikipedia article and it appears to be biased. Combining schools with clubs made 'school cricket' read as very unimportant and unworthy of writing. Scrabble doesn't suffer the insult of being named an 'informal' and 'amateur' game in its introductory summary while only earning itself a mere two emphatic lines. — Brett Johnston (talk • contribs) 11:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Brett. I would agree with you. By all means update the section, especially with any sources you can cite. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

As discussed in the thread above, called Once Upon A Time, this page has had its difficulties in the past, and there are still improvements that could be made, I can think of some others myself. I agree the additions/changes you mention would be improvements so please go ahead and implement them. Mmitchell10 (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Bat-and-ball games mentions enough games to describe as related. I will look into it. Brett Johnston (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2017

Geanfranco10171 (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Abstract Purpose To investigate whether there is a differential response at rest and following exercise to conditions of genuine high altitude (GHA), normobaric hypoxia (NH), hypobaric hypoxia (HH), and normobaric normoxia (NN). Method Markers of sympathoadrenal and adrenocortical function [plasma normetanephrine (PNORMET), metanephrine (PMET), cortisol], myocardial injury [highly sensitive cardiac troponin T (hscTnT)], and function [N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)] were evaluated at rest and with exercise under NN, at 3375 m in the Alps (GHA) and at equivalent simulated altitude under NH and HH. Participants cycled for 2 h [15-min warm-up, 105 min at 55% Wmax (maximal workload)] with venous blood samples taken prior (T0), immediately following (T120) and 2-h post-exercise (T240). Results Exercise in the three hypoxic environments produced a similar pattern of response with the only difference between environments being in relation to PNORMET. Exercise in NN only induced a rise in PNORMET and PMET. Conclusion Biochemical markers that reflect sympathoadrenal, adrenocortical, and myocardial responses to physiological stress demonstrate significant differences in the response to exercise under conditions of normoxia versus hypoxia, while NH and HH appear to induce broadly similar responses to GHA and may, therefore, be reasonable surrogates.

Not done: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Cricket. It is not the place for publishing biomedical research abstracts. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017

Bulletsekar (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request Galobtter (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Archive

All content to 28 October 2017 is now in Talk:Cricket/Archive 13. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2017

Dipen patel 2952000 (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

cricket is the great game

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.--MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 04:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018

The article states:

If a fielder is injured or becomes ill during a match, a substitute is allowed to field instead of him, but the substitute cannot bowl, act as a captain or keep wicket...

This was changed in 2017, I believe. For instance, it happened today in the IPL:

http://www.timesnownews.com/sports/cricket/ipl/article/ipl-2018-new-rules-allow-aditya-tare-to-keep-wickets-for-injured-ishan-kishan-during-mi-vs-rcb-match/218530 Johnroblawson (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Note: Will be checking the details and adding. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Question: Paging @Winged Blades of Godric: Were you still looking into this? Didn't want to inadvertently step on your toes by editing this for User:Johnroblawson. OhKayeSierra (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: re-ping just in case. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

An umpire signals a decision to the scorers

As the contributor comments, "I'm not entirely sure what the umpire (Simon Taufel) is signalling, but I'm sure it's important."

I'm sure this isn't any official signal, and it probably isn't a signal to the scorers at all. Anyone got a picture of a commonplace signal of some significance?

Atconsul (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit ambiguous. He could be calling byes or he could be giving a batsman out. On first glance I thought the former, but when I blew it up, I thought the latter. Yes, we ought to replace it, it's not a great photo for this reason and others. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

He say out. Thank u. Pandya101 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Bail or Bails?

In the very first paragraph, it says "*a bail* balanced on three stumps". Is the Bail (cricket) article wrong, or is this wrong? This one seems to be, but I am surprised. Am I missing something? Peacedance (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha! You are right. There are two bails, not one. I believe there was only one bail way back in antiquity when there were only two stumps. Only one bail needs to be removed for a dismissal to be possible, though. Well spotted. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2018

The introduction says "When ten players have been dismissed, the innings end and the teams swap roles." Shouldn't that be "innings ends"? 208.95.49.47 (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 208.95.49.47 (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: the innings (plural) end (plural). It could have been "inning (singular) ends (singular)" but "innings (plural) ends (singular)" in wrong DannyS712 (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Could someone perform the edit I requested above? Clearly DannyS doesn't understand that "innings" can be singular in cricket. 208.95.49.47 (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, but as an American, this sounds horribly wrong, so it's understandable that this was denied at first without additional explanation. Usage of "innings" as a singular is apparently a British English thing, and since the rest of the article follows this usage and since this article uses British English, I've gone ahead and made the change, strange as it seems to me. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: thanks. Sorry, I should have been more careful. Apologies to the IP editor. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"Innings" is certainly singular, but is it plural? I am sure I have heard "inningses" as the plural, which does not necessarily mean it is correct, of course. Seadowns (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

Add Cricket test world cup Namanjn10555 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2019 (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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019

The article states:

New European cricket league is now <a href="https://eurot20-slam.com ">EURO T20 SLAM </a> league which is officially organized under the cap of ICC. Which is held at Netherland, Scotlands, and Ireland from 30th August to 22 September 2019

https://eurot20-slam.com Johnroblawson (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Will be checking the details and adding. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Runs for wickets vs. wickets for runs

In the entire cricketing world, except Australia, a score is given as e.g. 156 (runs) for 7 (wickets). In Australia it's the reverse: 7 for 156. Can anyone tell me how and why and when this change happened Down Under? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC) not compared Australia with others

Apparently, it was Ned Gregory's fault. [2]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cricket (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)