Talk:Cricket/Archive 2

This is a temporary page I have created till I finish working on the cricket article. Please do not edit the temp page. Use this space to suggest modifications. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:35, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

ODI history tweak
A good start. I'd suggest some changes to this:


 * A metamorphous of sorts occurred in 1961, when the regulations of the sport were unofficially tweaked so that a match produced an expedited result. This gained widespread popularity and resulted in the birth of one-day international (ODI) matches in 1971. The new avatar was quickly adopted by the governing International Cricket Council in 1971 and the first ODI Cricket World Cup was held in 1975. Since then, at the expense of Test cricket, ODI matches gained mass spectatorship much to the consternation of cricket purists.

"Metamorphosis" is misleading, as it implies a change from the old into the new, rather than expansion to a new form. And "avatar" is a bit esoteric. Also, "purists" is not NPOV - some would claim people who don't like ODIs are old fuddy-duddies. I'd rewrite as:


 * Cricket entered a new era in 1961, when regulations of the sport were tweaked to add a new style of match, that produced a result in a single day's play. This gained widespread popularity and resulted in the birth of one-day international (ODI) matches in 1971. This new form of cricket was quickly adopted by the governing International Cricket Council in 1971 and the first ODI Cricket World Cup was held in 1975. Since then, at the expense of Test cricket, ODI matches have gained massive popularity, much to the consternation of fans who prefer the longer form of the game. As of the early 2000s, however, Test cricket is making a growing resurgence in popularity.

--dmmaus 21:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Links
An excellent start. Couple of linking niggles: and I prefer dmmaus's text above, but -- ALoan (Talk) 00:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * please refer to 12th century not pipe link as 12th c. - I think this style of piped link is non-standard
 * Edward I is a redirect to Edward I of England so a pipe would be best here - Edward I - and I don't think the "King" is necessary before it
 * I'm not sure the reference to "tweaking" the rules is entirely appropriate - there are just different rules for the new form of the game, as there are for any other form of the game.

11 August
Dmmaus: I'll go with some of your changes. I don't think avatar is esoteric, In my opinion I feel that it fits neatly here. I haven't explained that test cricket lasts for 5 days, that's why I mentioned an expedited result. Since test cricket is the only sport I know of that lasts so long, it would be difficult to explain why it goes on for so long right at the start. Rather, I would mention it later on.

ALoan: Yeah, I'll make the necessary changes in my local file on the niggles. As far as the difference between Tests and ODI cricket, there isn't much to choose by way of rules -- strategies yes, but if you have any objection to the word 'tweaking' please let me know an alternative apposite phrase.

I need to clarify this:
 * 1) One umpire is known as the Square-Leg Umpire, the other is known as?
 * 2) Are there any fielding restriction concerning off side and on sides?
 * 3) After the 15 over limit is up, how many fielders must be inside the 30 yrd circle and how many can be standing at the boundary (I think upto 5)

Please review the new changes. (I know the 'out' bookmark does not work as yet and the picture is absent.) The changes that I have accepted will be made in my local file, not here, and will be added the next day.

Pictures needed:
 * 1) Batsman
 * 2) Ball, bat etc.
 * 3) A closeup pic of a match in progress.

&#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:27, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Two things: (1) I think the structure of what you are doing is excellent. This is a much more logical layout of the material than the present page, and it looks like you're proceeding well. (2) I have so many comments about specific things like wording and grammar and so on, that I think the easiest thing is for you to complete your rewrite, and then allow people to copyedit it into better shape. Most notably, I think you're tending to use complicated words (dexter, sinister) where simple ones alone would be just fine (right, left). But please, keep up the good work! --dmmaus 21:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I ought say that I wholeheartedly agree with dmmaus - you are doing an excellent job - well done! - but the new article will need a good copyedit/proofread when you are finished to give it a final polish (trusting that that won't compromise its much more logical structure and fluid phrasing). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

12 August
Thanks :). I have finished the basic editing of the page. Please feel free to correct the grammar and spellings if necessary. Please discuss any major changes instead of changing the text. I have carefully tried to maintain the flow of thought so that there is no information overload and is as fluid as possible (pretty difficult task). I have also uploaded some images as you can see (made in MS word). It may look fudgy and drab, but something is better than nothing.


 * Ok, I need you'll guys to help me out. I cannot proof-read (I'll go insane). Also please correct the See also and Main article. Some are bulleted and some are not. I think it needs consistency. Both the tables I have created are horrible and corrections are needed in its syntax. The tests vs. ODI section can be moved lower down too. In the meantime I will be filling up the new red links.

I suggest that we keep this page for another 3 days, invite people to proof-read & suggest changes, remove the chinks, then only update the main page. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:40, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've done a big copyedit. I was fairly aggressive in changing sentences, but I've left the structure intact. (I believe "major changes" means things like removing entire sections and rearranging stuff.) The structure is excellent, and I think a bit more polishing of the details will see this be much better than the current page. I've edited more heavily towards the beginning - I got a bit tired near the end and would like to see some more refinement there. One thing in particular I'd like to see is some earlier clarification that Tests and ODIs (which are the main thrust of the article, and that's fine) are not the only form of cricket - at the moment that information is only presented right near the end. I tried to fit it in near the top, but didn't see a good place for it. Anyway, great work nichalp! --dmmaus 01:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A few comments: -- Emsworth 01:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * In re "Bowling end umpire": I thought the correct form was "bowler's end umpire."
 * "Retired hurt/ Retired out": I've also heard of the terminology "Retired not out" for the former; which is official?
 * Bouncers: The rule was formerly 2 per over per batsman in tests. Has this been changed to 2 per batsman?
 * Should we not put "Dismissal of a batsman" and "Scoring runs" under "Play of the game"?

--dmmaus 04:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, yes... I think "Scoring Runs" should be merged into "Batting" and "Dismissal of a batsman" into "Bowling", both under "Play of the game"; and move "Tests vs ODIs" below the entire "Play of the game" section, in fact right down to inside the "Forms of the game" section, perhaps even remove it entirely and let the individual Test and ODI articles deal with the differences. That removes the bouncer issue, for one - which is really a playing condition, not a Law, anyway. That would make the article structure flow better I think.
 * "bowling end"/"bowler's end" - I don't think it matters much. It's an informal term - the Laws only refer to "the umpire at the bowler's end" and "the umpire at the striker's end". Perhaps "bowler's end" is more usual.
 * "Retired not out" is the term used in the Laws, but "retired hurt" is much more common in everyday usage.


 * I've added my 2d of copyedit. Nichalp's structure is great - it flows much better than the current page.  And I thought the diagrams were fine - perhaps I am not a diagram person!  My main concern is to make sure that the current content that is not replicated here is copied somewhere - I presume that this will happen when the new pages' red links are filled in?


 * I broadly agree with most of Emsworth's comments and dmmaus's replies:
 * yes, but both terms are used
 * "retired not out" is the official term but "retired hurt" is the term that virtually everyone uses in practice
 * Still two per batsman per over, I think
 * Yes, provided it does not unbalance that section too much.
 * -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, then I propose the following structure: -- Emsworth 18:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) History
 * 2) Objective
 * 3) Playing field
 * 4) Pitch
 * 5) Wickets
 * 6) Creases
 * 7) Field placements
 * 8) Players - mention different roles (batsman, bowler, keeper, fielder, runner, sub, captain)
 * 9) Officials
 * 10) Play of the game - include some info now in the section "match structure"
 * 11) The toss
 * 12) Innings and overs - include brief explanation of test/ ODI diff.
 * 13) Batting - include extras, penalty runs
 * 14) Bowling - include info on dismissal of batsmen, also method of bowling; no-balls/ wides
 * 15) Fielding and keeping - include info on fielding restrictions; rules on keeper's movement, etc.
 * 16) Victory - include info now in the section "Victory margin"
 * 17) International structure - ICC, Australia's dominance, etc.
 * 18) Forms of cricket - ''more detail on test/ ODI diff.
 * 19) See also/ References/ Links, etc.

Why is this article here?
Why isn't this at Cricket (sport)/temp? RickK 20:05, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point - see my recent comment on Talk:Cricket. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Although it is a faux pas, the page will be having a short life, so no harm done. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 20:18, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

13 Aug
Glad to see that the loose bricks have been cemented. Here are some reverts that I have carried out:
 * 1) The pitch is predominantly clay - Many pitches in India lack any sort of grass -- I've corrected that.
 * 2) ODI cricket in the beginning. I have edited to expedited result. Reason: A person without any knowledge of this sport would be puzzled as to why the match finishes "in a day" as all other sports finish in a day. I've changed it so that that person gets a basic idea that a ODI match finshes a lot quicker than a test match. The duration of the two are mentioned later.
 * 3) Origin of the name deserves a seperate heading for clarity or the history will look too bulky.

The left aligned images look hideous. Please change it. I have included some text on batting strategy in the batting talk page. I need it to be merged. I will also be filling the remainder of the red links tomorrow. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 20:16, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Reverts 1 and 2 are okay. I disagree about the "Origin of the name" section being separate. I now think it should be removed completely, since it's covered in detail in the main History of cricket article, and a separate section for it is really tangential to the point of this article and adds overall bulk. I also like Emsworth's suggested restructure of the sections, listed above, which addresses the concerns I had in my last message. --dmmaus 23:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the left-aligned images - they look better that way than staggered next of each other at the right. The problem is there are too many images used in a short space of text. It might be better to combine some of the images into one: the pitch and wicket for example. Or else make the thumbnails smaller. --dmmaus 23:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Might I ask what the source of the images is? If this article is to become a featured article, and even otherwise, images need to indicate their sources and licences or copyright status. -- Emsworth 01:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

15 August
The images are GFDL, created by me, although I have not explicitly stated due to lack of available time. I think the name origins should be there as it tells us on how the sport originated. The history article has the detailed explaination no doubt, but all matter relevent to the sport should have a separate sub heading. I agree with the point about the left aligned images, but the current image of the wicket, squeezes the sub heading which looks awful.

I need copyediting of the new pages I have created.
 * 1) runs
 * 2) end of an innings
 * 3) bowling strategy
 * 4) fielding strategy
 * 5) captain
 * 6) runner
 * 7) retired hurt
 * 8) types of bowlers
 * 9) scoring runs in cricket

I will also be adding to the toss article. PS. I may not be online tomorrow. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:48, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)