Wikipedia

Talk:Cricket/Archive 6

< Talk:Cricket
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Vfp15 in topic Why is the sport here and not the insect?
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Why is the sport here and not the insect?

Latest comment: 19 years ago48 comments20 people in discussion

Says it all...Kurt Weber 02:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The sport is a subject of interest to around a billion people all around the world. We have a lively community of Wikipedians contributing articles and information on it. There are a few hundred articles on various aspects of the sport. Cricket, the insect, has a handful of articles on a few species, totalling a few hundred words. And it's linked from the top of the page so people can find it. The sport is overwhelmingly more popular with contributors and readers of Wikipedia than the insect. There is no real argument for having it the way around that you suggest. -dmmaus 03:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

My reading of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page_naming suggests that the standard page for cricket should be the disambiguation page, and not the Cricket (sport), because there is not a consensus on the primary meaning of the word. Has there been a vote deciding this issue? Nereocystis 21:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, after trawling through the talk archives, I can find no question about the insect up until now - and the article has been around since February 2002. I'd say that is consensus, though if people want a vote, I'm sure one can be arranged - I'm not sure if it is needed, though Sam Vimes 21:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No, a vote really isn't needed. It would almost automatic for a disambiguation page. Nereocystis 21:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Is that to say "I'm about to make this a disambig"? Or is it to say "I think a vote would make this a disambig"? Knowing the animosity towards cricket by some users, you may have a chance... I doubt, however, that there would be consensus support for such a change. Why do you want the change to be made? [[smoddy]] 22:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that, that was poor wording. I wouldn't want to make a change of this import without consulting others. I did put a comment up in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_title_disputes asking for further input. I do not have a hatred of cricket, but it isn't obvious, particularly to those living in an area where the sport is uncommon, that the sport is the one primary meaning of the word cricket, while the insect is a mere second thought. Nereocystis 22:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not regionalised. There are over a billion fans of the sport in the world. You will forgive my saying so, but the three users to have commented so far are American, Norwegian and Portuguese. I am not refuting their positions, but merely noting that they have an inherent bias against the sport's significance (apologies, Sam), as it is not popular at all in any of those countries (equally, I note that I am biased towards the sport). I have a feeling that a very large number of Wikipedia's editors who hail from cricket-playing countries will not support this change. I fail to see why it is needed. There is even a link at the top of the page now, to the insect, so Sam's point is equally valid there. I fail to see the point of the move. [[smoddy]] 22:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, since Wikipedia is not regionalized, a page for the sport is not what many US residents. Of course, the sport is significant, but whenever there is not one primary meaning of a word, the disambiguation page should be used. I would expect Cricket (sport) to be at or near the top of a disambiguation page, as it is currently. Nereocystis 22:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Currently there is a link to the insect page at the very top of the page. This means that:
  1. Visitors to the sport page have one fewer clicks to get where they want than with a disambig
  2. Visitors to the insect page have the same number of clicks to get where they want as with a disambig
What advantages does the change then make? [[smoddy]] 23:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Nereocystis reading of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. It looks unclear to me if someone looking for Cricket would be interested in Cricket (sport) or Cricket (insect), so Cricket should be a disambiguation page. Nabla 22:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I suppose the editors of cricket pages are a bit frustrated with recent VfDs and things annoying them. No matter - actually I think it's a fair point, even though it's not been brought up in the past three years, and it probably doesn't hurt anyone to use one extra click to get where they want. As long as cricket (sport) is on top of the dab page :) Sam Vimes 22:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to a disambig page, but I don't see the need for it tbph. I'm from England, and to me (and I suspect to most others from cricketing nations) the sport is what I first think of. Thryduulf 23:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, go ahead and have a vote if it will make some people happy. Frankly, however, I think this is petty and merely being done to antagonise those who have worked so hard on all the cricket material in Wikipedia. Cricket has the second largest following of any sport in the world. If there was an insect called a "baseball" that had 5 articles on variant species totalling maybe 500 words, would people be clamouring to make Baseball a disambiguation page pointing to Baseball (sport) and Baseball (insect), rather than simply the main article on the sport that it is now? I don't think so. And baseball doesn't have anywhere near the following that cricket has. -dmmaus 23:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Whoa, not so fast! m:Polls are evil. Let's try discussion first. I would agree, however, that this does feel like an attempt to work up the cricketing Wikipedians even further. I doubt it actually is, but it does feel like it. We have to ask, why would the majority of people end up at cricket? The answer is almost certainly a sport-related link. This is yet another solution desperately searching for its matching problem. [[smoddy]] 23:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Another data point: The sport has interlanguage Wikipedia links to articles in 41 other languages. The insect has 4 other languages. -dmmaus 23:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
When the term Cricket is used, it is generally refers to the sport. I think its more logical that the insect should be termed as crickets; the term is redirected to cricket (insect) when searched here. Crickets are a subfamily of Gryllidae and usage of the term cricket are all in plural. The actual matter on crickets are fragmented in pages on Jerusalem crickets, Ground crickets etc. This should settle the debate. I've put up a line on the article page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I think would not be a good solution as explained at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Nabla 22:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
True, but this is a major exception. Crickets almost entirely refers to the insect; it never refers to the sport. And similar to the Bernoulli numbers where the singular is rarely used, the insects too are almost always referred to in the plural sense. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the argument that the sport has a better claim than the insect to the main entry, but I have to agree with Nabla on this one: if I were looking for the insect, I would use the singular form. After all, we don't have "Beetles" or "Flies" or "Ants". Loganberry (Talk) 14:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. That is why I originally put a link to Cricket (insect), as with almost all such disambiguation messages. [[smoddy]] 14:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I see over 2150 links to Cricket and less than 100 links to Cricket (insect). I glanced through those 2150 links and found only 7 that obviously did not refer to the sport (and I corrected those links). It seems clear that the sport is the more often linked and I believe the sport should be left here, however, if we made Cricket the dab page, it would be a lot easier to spot the incorrect wikilinks. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


I am English and I live in a county where first-class cricket is played. I have played and supported the game since I was a little boy, so obviously I think of a fabulous sport whenever I hear the word cricket. Having said that, I am also well aware that there is a famous insect of the same name and there are many people in England, let alone the world, who think neek-neek-neek first when they hear the word. So, huge cricket (sport) fan that I am, I have no objection to a disambiguation page. But, please bear in mind that cricket the sport is inevitably going to have a massive presence on the site, while the insect is going to have one sizeable article and a few pics, but not much else.

I do want to say something about American attitudes in particular. It is about time Americans realised that their country's culture, including the bizarre activity known as baseball, is not paramount on this planet. Cricket has millions of fans throughout the whole world and it is generally reckoned there are more cricket fans in India alone than there are people in America. When has baseball ever created the sort of international fervour that the present Ashes series has aroused? --Jack 12:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Cricket is one of the most linked-to pages on Wikipedia. The sport has an enormous WP presence, which is only going to grow. It makes perfect sense that the sport is at "Cricket". I also imagine almost all WPians typing "cricket" in the search box will be looking for the sport - after all, cricket the sport has over a billion fans, how many fans does the insect have? jguk 12:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not a popularity contest. We just want what is most useful for the reader. DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you there but I get the impression that some Americans in particular think the site should be what is most useful for them. The best solution is to have the sport at Cricket but immediately below the titles of both article and category have links to cricket (insect) and any other categories of cricket. Makes sense to me. --Jack 13:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
And see my comments above for why this (i.e. the change) would not be useful for the reader. [[smoddy]] 13:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't follow you smoddy, I thought that's what you were in favour of. DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
My comment was a reply to you, which is why it was indented as such. My wording was probably not sufficiently clear, so I have clarified matters. [[smoddy]] 14:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
If the sport shared its name with elephant, perhaps the main page should be a disambiguation page, but cricket (insect)? How many people actually look that one up relative to the sport? Both the comparative length of the articles and the number of edits suggest that at best the insect is to the sport as London, Ontario is to London, and the gap is probably wider than in that case. Osomec 21:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

rfc comment. Many more inward links and much more content and much greater following of (definitely) editors and (almost certainly) readers make this clearly a primary topic disambig. Rd232 21:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC comment. All things being equal I think it would be best to have the disambiguation page at cricket. I don't think there's a clear primary meaning; for what it's worth, my OED lists cricket (insect) as the first meaning of the word. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:20, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

But all things aren't equal. If you look above, you will see my rationale for why this would not be a good idea. Fewer clicks to the sport, equal number of clicks to the insect. There's hardly an issue of neutrality here. We have to ask this question: what would be gained by the reader with this change? I can't see anything. Elucidation requested. [[smoddy]] 20:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I might equally advocate that the insect should be here with a link to the sport at the top of the page. But the reason to have a disambiguation page proper is that its far simpler and more obvious than the dab banner, which is easy to miss. The entire point is that, where it's not clear where a reader wants to be, offer him the choice in the simplest possible fashion -- a small, quick to load page that presents the choices and nothing else. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:02, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

I de-archived this, since it's very much a pertinent discussion. Cricket should direct to the disambiguation page. This article should be at Cricket (sport). Seems obvious to me. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, now I'm second-guessing myself. In the U.S., when someone says "cricket", everyone thinks insect. But on Google, of the first 20 hits for Cricket, only one is about the insect - #18. So I don't know. I still think it should be a dab page, but it's not clear-cut. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what's pertinent about it - but have a look at the "What links here" and you will note that this is one of the most linked to pages on WP, and that the links are about the sport. It's quite clearcut that the sport should be here - and there's not really much hassle at all about those who want to find out about the insect - indeed, it's no more effort than if this were a disambiguation page, jguk 17:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It's pertinent because consensus has not been achieved, and it's still listed on WP:RFC. It isn't clear-cut at all, since there are many who disagree with you. If you took a poll of all people who speak English as a first language, nearly all non-U.S.-residents would think of the sport when you say "Cricket", and nearly all U.S.-residents would think of the insect. If I'm right about that (and I think I am), then this suggests the insect is more prominent. The question isn't "How many clicks does it take?". It's about Wikipedia standards. Should a sentence like "Frogs eat [[cricket]]s and [[grasshopper]]s" link to the sport or not? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that the question has not been decided yet. Perhaps a straw poll is in order? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Statistics are like a broken lamp-post. Great for leaning on, useless for illumination. Replying to your actual point, I still don't get what you hope to gain from the move. What will be improved for the reader? There isn't a neutrality issue at stake here. This is a simple editorial decision. We just have to balance up costs and return. I can't see much return. Please illuminate. [[smoddy]] 21:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
If a poll is taken, where should it be placed? This article has an inherent bias, of course. Nereocystis 22:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
RfC, I suppose...although I would have thought the people likely to visit the page cricket would have the most say in the matter... Sam Vimes 22:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
There would be a request made at WP:RM, then the debate would happen here. As in, Talk:Cricket. Nowhere else. [[smoddy]] 23:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, here we go again. I'm staying out of this for the sake of my blood pressure, except to reiterate my earlier comment. If a "baseball" was an insect meriting a total of about 1,000 words on Wikipedia, would these Americans who are clamouring for "cricket" to be a disambig page rather than the sport also be arguing that "baseball" should be a disambig page rather than the sport with a link to the insect? Really? And then after you answer that, remember that cricket is much more popular worldwide than baseball - it is not an insignificant, quaint, ridiculous sport that nobody understands, plays, or cares about. -dmmaus 23:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the British would be complaining if "baseball" were an insect. According to OED, cricket was used for an insect in 1325, but wasn't used for the sport until 1598, a relative newcomer. Nereocystis 23:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Do you see us complaining because Football isn't Football (soccer)? --Ngb 07:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Do not re-open that can of worms! Pcb21| Pete 07:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Football is the longest disambiguation page I have ever seen, but it is done extremely well. Soccer, rugby, American football, Australian rules football...
What is the problem? Primary-topic disambiguation here will surprise almost all visitors: no-one expects a disambiguation page. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, no...that's the problem. There are two meanings, and the people who understand one are usually quite ignorant of the other, so neither side expects a dab page! Sam Vimes 10:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I was not being clear enough. As you say, the football was finally settled very well, after a lot of talk. My comment to ngb was intended to mean "please don't get people started about football, we already solved that one!" Pcb21| Pete 11:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think a valid comparison would be to Star Wars. With comparable significance to different cultures, and a comparably less significant homonym, there is no discussion as to whether Star Wars should link to Star Wars (disambiguation) so as to give Strategic Defense Initiative a fair shake. Granted, Star Wars and SDI don't stretch as far back as cricket and crickets, but I think it's a valid comparison. If one thinks Cricket ought to point at Cricket (disambiguation), then oughtn't Star Wars point at Star Wars (disambiguation)? Cigarette 16:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

in this example, SDI was named after Star Wars (the movie) whereas cricket (insect) came before cricket (sport). the argument on this page stems from the fact that the insect and the sport etymologies evolved independently (apparently). -- Bubbachuck 15:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

i strongly disagree with the arguments presented here for the sport being on the main article because

1) the insect has been around for millions (billions?) of years and is infinitely more significant than the sport, or ANY sport (yes, including baseball). i say this because if the insect were gone, ecosystems around the world could collapse whereas life would go on without the sport. remember that cricket is the name for an ANIMAL, a scientific term that describes a very important animal to the world. i believe that along should settle the argument. show me another Wikipedia or encyclopedic article where the natural animal is less significant than anything else named called the same thing. How many people have seen a cricket compared to how many people have seen a cricket match?

2) a longer, more in-depth article for the sport does not necessitate it being more significant than the insect because the insect page could very well be improved in a short while (physiology, anatomy, mating patterns, geographic distribution, growth cycle, popular culture, etc.) and i doubt the sports fans will change their minds

3) assuming that there really are a billion fans for cricket, the vast majority are from India. of those, only a small fraction of Indians would go on English wikipedia to look up Cricket. that said, I will claim China as a country that understands cricket to mean the insect. assuming both have populations approx equal in their command of english. with ~1 billion people each, we can cancel both countries out. also, I did not see anyone American (or Norwegian or Portuguese), state or imply that the reason they want cricket link to the insect or dab because they feel it is more significant to them. they were saying it would be more significant to the English-speaking population in general. Quote:

Statistics are like a broken lamp-post. Great for leaning on, useless for illumination. Replying to your actual point, I still don't get what you hope to gain from the move. What will be improved for the reader? There isn't a neutrality issue at stake here. This is a simple editorial decision. We just have to balance up costs and return. I can't see much return. Please illuminate. [[smoddy]] 21:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

in direct reply to smoddy, if you are going to discount statistics, then you are contradicting yourself with "There are over a billion fans of the sport in the world." in response to the gain to the reader, imagine the number of people who see or hear crickets everyday to the number of people who see or hear the cricket sport everyday. obviously the former is larger (rough estimate, i'd say there are AT LEAST tens of billions of crickets in the world, no exaggeration). i can imagine just as many if not more people who see a cricket (and say their friend tells them its called a cricket) and look it up than the number of people who look up the sport. assuming the numbers are equal, the scientific argument for the insect should weigh out. i understand than changing 2150 links is a pain but for the sake of the scientific value of Wikipedia as a factual encyclopedia, it should be done. if it makes a difference, I will volunteer to change 500 links (probably more). for these reasons, Cricket should link to the insect article and there should be a link at the top for the sport. if it makes a difference, i am a huge basketball fan and if there were any relevant scientific value to the word "basketball" i would vote to have it precede the sport.

-- Bubbachuck 15:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone looked up "cricket" in the OED or in Encyclopedia Britannica? I suspect that in a dictionary, the insect comes up first while in an Encyclopedia, the game does. BTW I came upon this article after a weekend trip to England where I saw strange people dressed in white doing strange things. I wanted to know more about it, so I went to wiki, and I AM SOOOOOO HAPPY that I didn't have to click that extra click through a disambiguation page. Really would have ruined my day otherwise. (Right. I of all people should talk...) Vincent 16:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I checked my OED last night. Its not the full one obviously but still an OED. It lists the sport as the first definition and the insect second. I don't have a Britannica to check but I have no reason to think it would be different. Put simply "cricket" means the sport to most English speakers outside of the USA. If a British child saw a cricket they would probably call it a grasshopper anyway. --LiamE 08:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Dang, I shoudda said "Webster's" :) Vincent 08:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned comment, moved from Talk:Cricket/to do

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please note that the centre of the cricket oval is called a 'wicket' and that the wooden posts are called 'stumps', someone has been referring to the 'wicket' as a 'pitch' which is inaccurate and I have never seen this term used. Fairywings 10:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's confusion with some people calling the three stumps together the wicket. I think the term pitch was used to give an unambiguous word for it. Besides, the commentators speak of "pitch conditions" all the time, people talk of the pitch playing well - the terms are roughly in equal use from my experience, and as wicket can be confused both with the action of taking a wicket and the three stumps and two bails together, I suggest the word pitch is still used. I won't revert you, though - yet Sam Vimes 16:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
You're wrong -- the centre of the cricket oval is called the pitch, as defined in the Laws of Cricket: see http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-7-the-pitch,33,AR.html. I've reverted accordingly. --Ngb 16:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Fairywings is partly right. Wicket is also incorrectly used to refer to the pitch. eg Batting on a sticky wicket =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

It may be incorrect by the laws of cricket, but the point I was making is that almost no-one refers to the Wicket as a pitch, so popular usage means that either Wicket or both should be used.Fairywings 10:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted. At best, as wicket says, the term is ambiguous and the sense is determined by context. Why use an ambiguous term when there is an unambiguous term that is also technically correct? At most, we need a note explaining that "wicket" is commonly used for "pitch" as well as "three stumps plus bails", "the area at either end of the pitch around the stumps", "dismissal of a batsman", or (with a number) "batsmen's partnership". - ALoan (Talk) 11:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It's just not Kricket!

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Having had to revert this twice in a short period I thought I might mention it here: the German for cricket is Cricket, and not Kricket as two bots have now erroneously had it. See (and note the spelling of) the Deutscher Cricket Bund website. Loganberry (Talk) 23:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Take that up with the kind people on the German wikipedia, then. As it stands, I don't think interwiki links should point to a redirect? Sam Vimes 06:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually - sod that comment. It appears they have the same content on both pages - de:Kricket and de:Cricket! Sam Vimes 06:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Bowler's arm bending

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"A bowler delivers the ball toward the batsmen, using what is known as a bowling action: his arm must not straighten at the elbow during the delivery. If he bends his arm in any manner, it is an illegal throw" From this excerpt, it would appear that the bowler's arm can be neither bent nor straight; as a non-cricketer, I am confused. Escheffel 23:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The bowler's arm may be either bent or straight - what is not allowed is for the arm to straighten, i.e. to become more straight than it is. If you throw a ball normally, notice how your elbow starts bent, but is straight when you release the ball. That is what is not allowed. Typically, a bowler keeps his elbow locked straight and rolls his arm over his shoulder. -dmmaus 23:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
And to make things even more complicated, scientists recently discovered (through analysing video of bowlers) that it is practically impossible to bowl without some straightening of the arm. This led to the ICC changing the rules to say that straightening of up to 15 degrees will now be permissible. Some bowlers are given even more latitude. The Sri Lankan bowler Muttiah Muralitharan is unable to fully straighten his bowling arm and it took an ICC investigation to clear him. His article has a very good explanation of the controversy involved. Lisiate 23:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Poll on where "Cricket" should be disambiguated

Latest comment: 19 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

This poll will be closed in 2 weeks, September 2, after which the consensus (or lack thereof) will be noted.

This poll has been cancelled. User:Quadell set this poll up, but it quickly became clear from several user comments that the poll could have been better constructed. Because of that, the aborted poll has been archived at Talk:Cricket/oldpoll and is no longer active. Instead, discussion is ongoing on how to best run such a poll.

Would it be possible to have an IRC meeting to discuss matters? Working in real-time might lower animosity and speed things up. [[smoddy]] 20:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have access to IRC at work. I'll be home in an hour or two, though. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make some statements about a new poll that I hope are non-controversial. If you disagree with any of the statements, please say so.

  1. Although several of us may have strong opinions, it is not yet clear what the consensus is in regards to what this page should contain.
  2. If the consensus is to have this article be about the sport, then this page should be about the sport, even if I personally disagree. And vice versa: if the consensus is to have this article be a disambig, then this page should be a disambig, even if some people disagree.
  3. If there isn't consensus, it would be better to achieve consensus, if possible.
  4. Polls attempt to determine or achieve consensus. They're not always effective at that.
  5. Consensus is best achieved if we assume good faith about each other. No one is trying to make Cricket (the sport) seem less prestigious. None of us wants U.S. culture to dominate Wikipedia, or on the other side, to marginalize U.S. culture.

Can we agree on these points? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll agree to this. I even enjoy the occasional fictional cricket match. Nereocystis 20:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Statements of common ground are good. This one is very valuable. [[smoddy]] 20:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what American culture has to do with anything - is the cricket (the insect) a cultural icon of some sort? Mind you, I suppose this had to happen - the United States cricket team has been split asunder and chucked out of the 2005 ICC Intercontinental Cup, riven by internecine disputes - we might as well have a US v The Rest debate here.

You're coming across as rather petty here. I don't see how those comments are helpful. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The abortive poll already showed strong views in support of this page remaining at the sport - and Quadell himself has said his preference for a disambiguation page is only a mild one. The abortive poll already showed that there was no realistic possibility of a consensus emerging to change to a disambiguation page. In the interests of WP harmony, may I suggest we leave things as they are? jguk 21:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very fair idea. I think it's worth trying to achieve consensus. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I propose that the following relevant statements are factually accurate:

  1. The vast majority of articles (2300 out of 2500) that link to cricket refer to the sport.
  2. Among the first 20 Google hits for "cricket", 17 are about the sport and none is about the insect. The first Google hit for the insect is at #101, while the American Cricket Association (related to the sport in the United States) is #39.
  3. In most areas of the world, the word "cricket" primarily refers to the sport.
  4. When counting "English speakers" as those who speak English regularly, even if not as a first language, roughly 2/3 of English speakers live outside the U.S. and would consider the word "cricket" to primarily refer to the sport.
  5. When counting "English speakers" as only those who speak English as a first language, excluding those who speak English regularly as a second language, roughly 2/3 of English speakers live in the U.S. and would not consider the word "cricket" to primarily refer to the sport.
  6. Both Cricket (insect) and and Cricket (sport) appear on User:Dcoetzee/List of Wikipedia articles with at least 1000 hits, with Cricket (insect) higher on the list.
  7. We should follow the guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation if at all possible.

Okay so far? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. With 6, I don't trust the accuracy of this page: there is no clear timescale, and the way this data was gathered is not clear. 1000 hits is a trivial number, and WP gets a lot of hits these days. I just cannot accept this page as accurate. With 7, I agree to an extent. However, this is fundamentally a renaming/moving issue, and as such should primarily conform to the process of WP:RM. Otherwise, this is good. [[smoddy]] 21:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Another point to mention: While cricket (insect) may be the primary meaning in countries where the sport is not prominent, the amount of people in these countries who would search for and link to the insect is relatively small compared to the amount of people who would search for and link to the sport in countries where the sport is prominent (Probably needs rewording) Sam Vimes 21:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
This is something I was trying to express in the first poll. Your wording is better than mine! [[smoddy]] 21:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
6 I disagree with - looking at that list as a whole I'd strongly question its accuracy. I'd expect some surprising results, but the list seems to have far too many of them to accept it without question. 7 I strongly disagree with. Wikipedia:Disambiguation is not a policy, and it is a relatively new concept that has not been widely discussed. To try to enforce it in a rock-ribbed fashion is inappropriate. It strikes me as needless instruction creep, jguk 22:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

As for #6, I think we can agree on what the page says - but some of you are questioning the page's accuracy. I've asked the author of the page for comment. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 22:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

As for #7, it's a guideline, just as much as any other. It's been widely discussed (Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation has five archives going back to 2002!). We generally follow guidelines on Wikipedia unless there's a good reason not to; that's why they're called guidelines. I think this issue is primarily a disambiguation issue, not a rename/move issue, but I would change the wording of #7 to say "We should follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Rename and Wikipedia:Disambiguation if at all possible". This sound good? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 22:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

#6 is going to be prejudicial unless there is a strong technical understanding of how it works. I personally just do not believe it. To me, that change is fine. I feel that, as the page is moving and being renamed under the proposal, the renaming policy is fundamental. My main opposition to the move is that it benefits the reader in no way, which I feel is an adequate reason for the guideline to be bypassed. [[smoddy]] 22:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
This approach - seeking to identify the common ground and the points of difference - is a much better way of reaching consensus. Thanks you.
I agree with all of your numbered points so far, although I agree with others' concerns about the accuracy of User:Dcoetzee/List of Wikipedia articles with at least 1000 hits, and do not think we should blindly apply guidelines. Here is a link to the current month's hits: cricket is not there; neither is cricket (insect) (nor List of French people! Notably, Special:Watchlist and List of sex positions are prominent here, but not in the other list). They are guidelines: to be followed where they are helpful, and not where not, and there are bound to be exceptions. Ignore all rules. In any event, Wikipedia:Disambiguation was substantially rewritten exactly one month ago (diff).
Time to go home :/ -- ALoan (Talk) 22:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
You reach home at midnight? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

current month's hit only lists the top 100 items, so it is not as complete as Dcoetzee's list. I would also like to know more Dcoetzee's list. Express skepticism, but wait for final judgement. Special:Watchlist should not be included, since it is different for every user. I'm not sure that #4 and #5 are complete. Most English speakers anywhere will recognize cricket (insect). Slightly fewer perhaps, but a very large number will recognize cricket (sport). Nereocystis 23:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey everybody. Sorry if I caused trouble - the list should not be considered to be 100% accurate. It's simply based on the cur_counter field from the last database dump, and I don't quite understand myself how often this number is reset or what types of hits are counted (it's also a bit out of date). Moreover, hit counts alone don't establish which topic should be the primary topic - often one article is simply more popular either because it's higher in Google results, it's linked from popular external sites, or something like that (none of which seem to be the case in this case, oddly enough). In this case, my personal opinion is that they're equally notable (and so this page should be disambiguation). Deco 04:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to work out one matter. I am still not sure why the move is being proposed. The only reasoning that I have seen is Wikipedia:Disambiguation suggests it, and why this is relevant. I am beginning to feel that, strictly applying guideline, the move may be appropriate. However, I am still opposed to making the move. I can see no benefit to the reader, and thus I feel that WP:IAR should apply. This statement is not intended to be awkward, I just want to work out why the move is being made. "Because policy says so" is just not enough for me. [[smoddy]] 11:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, "A vanishingly small percentage of the US is even aware the sport exists. —Cryptic (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)" (from /oldpoll) is not a valid reason. WikiPedia is not just USA. I'd also like to make some (I think) valid comparisons: Hurling, curling and handball are all sports that are big (not as big as cricket) in some parts of the world, whilst they mean something completely different to other parts of the world, and I'm sure most are not aware of these sports. But I think the fact that the word is an obvious connection to the sport in places where the sport is important means it should have precedence. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we all agree that U.S. perceptions should not dictate Wikipedia content. (That's why we all agree that cricket should not point to the insect.) If 1/3 to 2/3 of English speakers (depending on your definition) are confused about the primary meaning of a term, then some of us think the term should point to a disambiguation page. The fact that those 1/3 to 2/3 are American is not the point. Yes, some Americans have historically been bullies about the English language, but that's not what's driving this debate. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
My question, "why should we move the page", is still going unanswered. [[smoddy]] 19:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone has any ideas as to where the acronym NFL leads to? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:58, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2005

Latest comment: 19 years ago41 comments25 people in discussion

discussion of whether cricket should be moved to cricket (sport) so cricket (disambiguation) can move to cricket. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 03:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments
I am beginning to get a feeling that the whole point of this exercise is to get a consensus by boring people to such an extent that they won't bother to vote. Tintin 20:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, the vote is pretty one-sided, but I should have deleted this section on Friday (it was added by Philip Baird Shearer because I added a note about the previous poll to WP:RM). -- ALoan (Talk) 00:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 1) I don't see why this has to turn anti-American. The insects are not a US patent, nor are they exclusive to the US. 2) I still don't see why we can't use the following setup to end this debate: Cricket=sport; crickets=insect (just for this dab). =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Crickets already goes to cricket (insect) and has for ages. (Funnily enough, inning redirects to innings.) -- ALoan (Talk) 00:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Not that funny at all, when you consider that the innings page treats both baseball and cricket - and inning (singular) is a pretty common American usage. Sam Vimes 06:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I would have expected there to be an argumet that innings should instead be at inning. There has already been a bit of discussion in Talk:innings. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • From above, it's clear that google searches for "cricket" are dominated by the sport, and it made me think what would someone do who is searching google for information about the insect - and I searched under "cricket insect" and Wikipedia came out second. Searching under "insect cricket" leaves Wikipedia coming out fourth. Leaving the insect at Cricket (insect) appears to have benefits - google searchers are more likely to choose to read WP - yet another reason to leave things as they are jguk 15:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I suppose it would be there anyway. Nothing would happen to the cricket (insect) page, remember - it's just this page that would be moved, if anything were to happen Sam Vimes 15:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed, all this move would do would be to move Cricket (the sport, that is) one click further away without moving the insect one click nearer, so it's pretty pointless. -- Joolz 01:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The guideline is clear. There isn't consensus for one choice, therefore it should be disambiguation. Nereocystis 12:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by consensus? Although we talk about it all the time, we very rarely mean that everyone had to agree, particularly on a yes/no question. So far, there is a clear supermajority (18-4) for the sport being at cricket. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Which guidelines? Wikipedia:Naming conventions says "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Oh yes you mentioned Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page_naming above. If the vote is less than 60% in favour of the move it is not agreed that a rough consensus exists under WP:RM to move the page. persumably if the vote is more than 60% of retaining the page as it is then one can state that there is a rough consensus that the sport is the primary topic under Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming and put this debate to bed.
The vast majority of English speaking people outside the USA think the sport when thinking cricket. In the USA I doubt that there a many who think "cricket" insect as often as those who think "world series" baseball. If you are American and someone was to say that there is also a World (champion) Series of Darts, please can the page "Wold Series" become a disambiguation page to save a click for the minority intrest of darts, would you, if you vote support for cricket to become a disambiguation page, also vote for that and would you be suprised that the majority of baseball interested Americans voted against such a change? Philip Baird Shearer 13:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Sweet mother of pearl! I happened across this very well-written article and decided to look at the discussion that led to it. (I do hope someone knowledgeable straightens out the arm-bend stuff, perhaps with an illustration, since I couldn't reconcile the description with the bowling I saw from a Melbourne hotel room overlooking a cricket club). I wanted to chime in as a near-lifelong American and (generally) a non-fan of sport(s): I see nothing wrong with cricket/sport as the primary topic. Picking up Shearer's comment, above, in the U.S. it's very common to speak of the 'World Series' of Whatever; because of the role of baseball in American popular culture, most people understand the analogy with baseball's championship at once, even if they overlook the irony of a "world" series open to only one team outside the U.S. and none from the Dominican Republic. The majority of Americans don't pay much attention to baseball, despite the 'national pastime' honorific; football, basketball, and soccer draw far larger crowds, far more viewers, and far more participants. Given its age, baseball has permeated the language, so when you use its terms outside of sports, you're not off base. In fact, even if you strike out with some people, you'll get credit for going down swinging. The point I'm making is that Wikipedia has a global audience and a global context (even though 'global' means 'people with internet access'), and within that context cricket/sport makes a lot more sense than cricket/insect. Even in North America, which is not identical to the United States, we have grillons and grillos. OtherDave 19:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Can someone point me to an official definition of English speakers. Some people above have assumed that only those who use English as their first language are English speakers, while others who can speak English (myself, for instance) should not be considered as English speakers. Tintin 14:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it's "what suits my point-of-view best". Apologies for assuming bad faith here, but that really is what it seems like. Why else would we propegate the idea that only those who speak English as a first language count? I would suspect quite a lot of English-speakers would rile at that idea. [[smoddy]] 14:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Althought your argument about "what suits my point-of-view best" is often vaid, in this case it does not matter how one measures the number as either first or second language speakers as the Indian subcontinent is a stronghold of the game. Philip Baird Shearer 20:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

There is now a very similar debate to cricket disambiguation debate about "William of Orange" see Talk:William of Orange Philip Baird Shearer 00:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket/Archive_6&oldid=1068655140"