Talk:Cricket (disambiguation)

(Talk initiated in WP's Pseudo-decade 0)

(The following discussion was apparently initially untitled, unsigned and undated)

(The following ex-post-facto contribs have been titled by me, included document in some cases retroactive timestamps/sigs based on the edit-history page. Where it seems less confusing, I shall place contribs that seem to respond to older contribs below those contribs rather than leaving them above where modern WPians are more likely to be misled or more confused, rather than to be grateful to share the experience of my spadework.
--JerzyA (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

(Solicit contribs off-site?)

Do you suppose its worth a gentle plug on rec.sport.cricket. There are many v. knowledgable people there that could really help this, is specially w.r.t. Asian cricket.

It appears no contribution information is available for that contrib. I leave it where I found it, despite the possibility that the contribs I've left above it --JerzyA (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, but I'm not a reader of that newsgroup. If somebody else wants to do that it would be excellent! Robert Merkel —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 28 January 2002

There is an account for a User:Robert Merkel, still active in the log about a year ago. Their first logged edit is stamped 14:33, 27 January 2002, so IMO there's nothing odd about earlier (and unlogged) contribs. If I had harbored doubts earlier tonite, i'd just deny it & say "I am not worthy!", as I did pranams at his feet!
--JerzyA (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(How is it played)

the main entry is already a clearer summary of cricket PLAY than I've ever read (just TRY being an American reading British murder mysteries and reading games instructions to figure it out!) --MichaelTinkler—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.128.xxx (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2001 (UTC)[reply]

(Disambiguation needed)

I daresay that the insect is the first thing people think of when someone says "cricket," especially outside of the UK. --KQ (or large amounts of Asia and other scattered outposts of civilisation :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 January 2002 (UTC)[reply]

not sure about the lbw description -- every call I've seen for lbw has NOT involved the ball striking pads, leg, etc... And I wish someone would describe googlie and Yorker in as equally clear a manner!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.94.122.xxx (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2002 (UTC)[reply]

I wish someone would describe googlie and Yorker in as equally clear a manner!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.20.135.xxx (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2002 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a first time user of this service. I found the page because I wanted to find out the name of the Australian cricket player who invented the googlie, as many years ago I met him. I played cricket in school in Toronto, Canada. I was a deadly spin bowler. The googlie is not a "fast ball" it is a unique spin ball. It is delivered by releasing the ball out of the bottom of the palm of your hand (without using your fingers to try to impart spin to the ball). At the point of release the back of your hand should face the batter, so the release is actually out of the top of your hand because your hand is upside down. Your aiming point is about 2/3 of the way down the pitch and you want two bounces before reaching the batter. For some reason, the ball spins slightly left on the first bounce and slightly right on the second. A half yorker is a ball that arrives above the feet but below the knees of the batter. A full yorker arrives above the knees but below the top of the wickets. That is like a fast ball. If you, or anyone you know can remember the name of the guy I'm trying to remember, plse email me at mrmichaelmouse@shaw.ca. howzthat.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.255.204 (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2002 (UTC)[reply]

The inventor of the googly was Bernard Bosanquet, an English player who played first class cricket from 1898 to 1919. Either you're the oldest person to ever use this site, or somebody was pulling your leg. We should have an article about this guy. --Robert Merkel 00:13 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

I got a real chuckle out of your answer; I guess someone was pulling my leg. More likely someone said that this non Bernard entity was well known for his googly. I guess if I can't spell it, I shouldn't wax on it. I appreciate your response. Michael—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.255.204 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2002 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed Bosanquet. I've corrected the spelling of the name in the link. --Dweller 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A (belated) welcome to WP's calendar-decade 1

… before it ends in about 8 weeks.
--JerzyA (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True or false??

True or false: it is better to use this article for the insect and move other articles to Cricket (disambiguation). 66.32.69.62 23:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

False - better to move cricket (sport) here and move this article to cricket (disambiguation). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

False - Agree with ALoan -- Emsworth 21:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

true

Patently true, but there's no point in fighting sports fans. — Pekinensis 05:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True. Crickets have been called crickets before the sport came about.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Glolt (talk • contribs) 05:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Types of cricket

Do we really need the types of cricket mentioned in this dis-ambiguation page?? This is a dis-ambiguation page for the meanings of the word cricket, not the types of cricket. 66.32.246.73 01:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cricket moved to Cricket (sport) and Cricket (disambiguation) moved to Cricket

On Talk:Cricket, there is a discussion of whether cricket should be moved to cricket (sport) so cricket (disambiguation) can move to cricket. Nereocystis 19:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was not to move the page. PBS 12:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a discussion on Talk:Cricket, why's that? --Commander Keane 17:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Cricket/archive6 -- ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to be consistent, we must go ahead with the proposal.--Bedford 04:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's no surprise that the proposal was defeated; the poll took place on the talk page for the sport, so naturally it attracted more attention from people interested in the sport. If we are to take a poll to gauge consensus, it must take place on neutral ground. Andrew Levine 19:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to Unscribe cc by -sa 3.0 and gfdl Blu26 (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Move.--Hús ö nd 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket (disambiguation) → Cricket — I don't think there's a way to say certainly that the sport is a more likely search term than the insect. It appears that this was proposed back in 2005 and failed, but I think it is worth revisiting. GassyGuy 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Support I think there is a good chance many people will be looking for the insect when they type "Cricket". TJ Spyke 00:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

Well, let's start with the fact that we have a WikiProject and a portal dedicated to cricket, with dozens of active editors, hundreds of articles (including a featured portal, 13 featured articles and a t least 22 featured lists)...versus 11 articles in Category:Crickets. While crickets are really cool insects and deserve much more respect than they get, cricket is the second most popular sport in the world. Guettarda 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Guettarda. Also, Cricket has clear links at the top of the page to both the insect and the disambiguation page. Flyguy649 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not going to rehash all of the points mentioned in Talk:Cricket/Archive 6 and elsewhere, but considering the number of links to Cricket (stopped counting at 6000) compared to Cricket (insect) (<100) (admittedly some may incorrectly point to the sport), the amount of cricket (sport) material on Wikipedia and the enormous global following of the sport, I can only oppose this suggestion. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE Whats the point of moving the article when it would take the people looking for the inscect the same number of (two) clicks still. I don't think more people will be looking for the inscect over the sport and the people who are looking for the inscect still have the same easy access to the inscects article as they would in the disambiguation. You can have a look at the link provided above by Oliver brown and the past Requested move as well the old poll and know why it is the way it is now. This is pretty pointless in my opinion, what good would it do for the reader looking for the inscect anyway? It would still take them two clicks. Pointless...--Thugchildz
Oppose. Far more people will be looking for the sport than the insect, in my opinion. Possibly even in the U.S., where in my experience people always seem to be fascinated to know what the game is. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As previous discussions have shown, the interest in the sport overwhelms the insect. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The arguments have been made many times by people more eloquent than me. If you're interested in the insect, you're demonstrably in the tiny minority. --Dweller 20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the arguments listed above pretty much tell the story. Keep things as is.--Eva ^bd 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Since this would require moving the cricket article as well, a link to this discussion should be posted there. Guettarda 18:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't contest the popularity of cricket the sport, but I highly doubt wikilinks are the best way to judge this. The fact that more people would be fans of cricket the sport than cricket the insect is uncontestable. This would account for a lot of the references etc. on Wikipedia. I do not see how you can prove, however, that somebody typing cricket into the search would be more likely to be wanting info on the sport than on the insect. One usage seems just as common as the other, and it therefore seems more sensible to have the disambiguation page in the main slot. How would it be harmful? There are also many similar cases where disambiguation pages take main article slots. Usually there has to be an obvious (or at least relatively provable) primary usage for that not to be the case. GassyGuy 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see how you can prove, however, that somebody typing cricket into the search would be more likely to be wanting info on the sport than on the insect - actually, if people are (far) more interested in the sport than the insect, then it's far more likely that someone looking for "cricket" is looking for the sport, not the orthopteran. Guettarda 21:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletions

Items deleted and reason:

Cricket St Thomas, a village in Somerset, England - reason: MOS:DAB: don't include entries of which the term forms only a part of the name in normal use
The codename for a clicker used in World War II - reason: clicker article doesn't mention it.

Rexparry sydney 01:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the partial match Cricket St Thomas in the see also per WP:MOSDAB but mainly as the park and house are listed there. Widefox; talk 22:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 September 2019

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

The result of the move request was: not moved, appears to meet both criteria for primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

– While references for "cricket" (singular) are probably more common for the sport than the insect as someone in England I don't think its overwhelming. The sport is only a few hundred years old but the insect has been around far longer and would likely be so in the future even if the sport became less popular. Both topics are level 4 vital articles. While its true that there is a direct link to the insect, a DAB page is less confusing and has less content to load. In addition there are other uses of "Cricket". The sport has 127,979 views but the insect has 28,767, Tettigoniidae has 20,163 and Cricket (darts) has 3,413 [[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this is the seventh time this request has been made (granted the last time was 11 years ago) and the last discussion was overwhelmingly against the move, could you please directly address the major points of the previous discussion? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well 11 years is plenty long enough to start a new discussion but at that time the long-term significance criteria didn't exist and it was claimed that the sport is more common worldwide, while I'm someone in England and I don't think either is dominant even though more people will probably look up the sport. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fully agree that once a decade is not too often to have a discussion, and I didn't realize that the criteria didn't exist at that time. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support There is no primary topic between the insect and the sport._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and ZXCVBNM. No WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm no lover of the sport, but it's more than old enough for the "long-term significance" argument to sound a little silly. The hatnotes have this covered and I don't see a compelling argument for change. PC78 (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the sport is the clear PT by page views and by coverage in news. The lasting significance argument is frankly risible, the sport clearly has lasting significance, having been around for centuries and is one of the most popular sport in a number of major countries. WP:DAB even says : While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative. I would contend that a time when the sport is less significant than the insect is likely to be a time when WP itself no longer exists. Spike 'em (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google cricket sport -insect gives 966m hits, cricket insect -sport gives 89m. Spike 'em (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using the pageviews above: Even assuming every view of Cricket (insect) and every view of Cricket (dab) went via Cricket, then there are still 98k page views of Cricket not looking for these pages and 97k views of all the other pages on the dab that aren't talk / help pages. Factoring out the film / TV series with minor characters called Cricket, there are about 75k views of the pages left, so the sport has 3.5 times as many views as any other single article on the dab and more views than the rest combined which meet the criteria to be Primary to me. Spike 'em (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: it doesn't matter whether the insect should be as popular, by any measure - Ghits, page views, incoming links, number of articles - it doesn't match the second most popular sport in the world. St Anselm (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TITLECHANGES. The sport is the primary topic here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per the people above and all the words expounded over the previous seven RMs --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. StickyWicket (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Was it only 11 years ago that we last went through this? The second most popular sport in the world takes precedence here. --Roisterer (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very clearly the primary topic based on page views, ghits and so on. The sport may not be the primary topic in all parts of the Anglophone world, but I'd very strongly suggest that it is very clearly the primary global topic in Anglophone countries Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cricket which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]