Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of cricket terms/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008.

List of cricket terms
I am nominating this page for removal because it only has two sources and neither of them go directly to a relevant page. One goes to a general news website, while the other just goes to a list of Cricket rules. -- Scorpion0422 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal This may be a case of outdated links, new references could easily be found, dictionaries of cricket terms are abundant. Here for example is a CricInfo cricket glossary, and CricInfo is the most used source for cricket in wikipedia I should imagine. This pdf by the ECB also serves as a reference, as does this BBC article, and this article from the Sussex CCC, and What is a Googly by Rob Eastaway. SGGH speak! 23:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. If you're going to add the refs, I suggest checking to make sure every term is covered. Also, the lead could use a little polishing, and it wouldn't hurt to have a lead image. -- Scorpion0422 23:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is probably a good time to do a cleanup (is Dweller listening ?) I wouldn't bother if terms that are very common aren't sourced, but there are quite a few which are not well-known - for eg, Xavier Tras, Rogers, Pongo, Popper, Mullygrubber etc. We also need to make sure that these have some popularity and are not one-off usage (even if that one use is in BBC). Tintin 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do the work yes, but with other things on my plate it may not be for a day or so. SGGH speak! 07:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know if any of the terms aren't covered in your references. I can probably fill in most of any gaps from Barclays World of Cricket, a cricket encyclopaedia which has a glossary section. JH (talk page) 08:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed my vote to endorse as I have discovered that the article is in fact a near complete copyright violation of this page. Each entry will have to be rewritten and then referenced to that page, which is in fact a good source. SGGH speak! 09:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is almost certain that Sussex site copied it from Wikipedia and is a copyright violation as they haven't acknowledged the source. If you look at the first entry Agricultural shot - "this is a swing across the line of the ball (resembling a scything motion) played without much technique. Often one that results in a chunk of the pitch being dug up by the bat. A type of a slog. This term is thought to have originated in the city-country games in Australia, where the farmers normally had less technique, but more power than their city rivals."
 * The first two lines were added by Hig Hertenfleurst on Aug 6, 2004. The Australian connection was added by an anon on Sep 6, 2005. The scything motion was added by yet another anon of August 25, 2005. What are the chances that all these people separately copied this from the Sussex site, and left everything else there alone ? Tintin 10:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... perhaps I reacted to hastily. Does this mean that Sussex can't be a source nevertheless? SGGH speak! 13:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we can't use Sussex as a source now. That would be a self-reference. By the bye, should someone contact Sussex County Cricket Club and gently remind them about Wikipedia's licencing requirements? -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay I will remove that source, however I have added loads of citations using the other three, but still more are needed. SGGH speak! 13:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a copyvio. I helped write many of the terms. The Internet archiev lists the sussex page since July 9, 2006.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Back to opposing the removal then, however there are some ommissions which I'll help fill, and more references needed. The massive use of the cricinfo reference has left the notes section rather ugly... SGGH speak! 16:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a long process :( SGGH speak! 16:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support removal
 * WP:BOLDTITLE states it shouldn't be wikilinked
 * fixed SGGH speak! 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Final sentence of first paragraph needs citing - fixed SGGH speak! 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Each term needs citing
 * Am working on it SGGH speak! 09:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Have to wonder if it even belongs in Wikipedia at all, per WP:NOTDICDEF.
 * This was discussed at Featured list candidates/List of cricket terms/archive1 where a number of users tackled this issue. Hopefully it will defend it to your satisfaction SGGH speak! 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. I don't use Wiktionary the way I do Wikipedia, so don't know if they have Featured content. If they do, this should be Featured there, not here. User:Nichalp's arguments for it staying on Wikipedia don't really inspire me. Sorry. Matthewedwards (talk· contribs· count· email) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthewedwards (talk· contribs· count· email) 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose removal. Most of the reasons which proponents of removal have given seem readily fixable. As to whether the article belongs in an encyclopaedia, it's surely not unusual for an encyclopaedia concerning a specialist subject to include a glossary, which is what this list is. Indeed, the comprehensive cricket encyclopaedia Barclays World of Cricket includes a glossary section. JH (talk page) 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Article needs a lot of referencing work to be due its status, as well as removing OR and tightening up definitions. (I just had a bit of a bash at the "A"s) That said, there's no deadline. I'm very busy with Bradman's article, but there's enough contributors to WP:CRIC to be able to sort this out. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment—I'm impressed that the author(s) has used fine judgement in improving on the definitions in the sources (I was all ready to find copyright breaches, but didn't). However, the whole thing needs a good massage for formatting issues. Some bits need copy-editing; there are a few MOS breaches. I hope it's saved, but can't be without significant work. TONY   (talk)  14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Wikipedia is not a glossary of terms. GreenJoe 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The FAC disagrees, I don't think that kind of statement can be made without discussion. SGGH speak! 10:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.