Talk:Cricket (sport)

added subpage template

Hi John, good work here, though we Americans have a lot to learn on this one! I added the subpages template to your article for you. You are allowed to do this too, so if you ever need any help, just let me know and I'll walk you through it. Make sure and take a look at the metadata page and see if everything looks right to you. You can update it as the status changes with this article (ie once you add some wikilinks, ready for approval, etc.) --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:51, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes, looking good, John. I do think something about runs and what they are needs to be added to the first elementary exposition of the game. I didn't understand that first section until I read the "runs" section. --Larry Sanger 09:01, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Mention on BBC blog

BBC journalist Rory Cellan-Jones admits he has only a modest knowledge of cricket, but it might be useful to know that as a layperson he finds the Wikipedia version of this article easier to read. This is another article identifying CZ's number of articles as a problem. John Stephenson 02:48, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

Intro

Seems to me to duplicate the main text too much. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem. Do you think the intro should be very short, say, two sentences? Or should it be a full "lead" which summarises all the main points of the text? I think after all I'm inclined with a wide subject like this to go for the short option. John Leach (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Many regard cricket as utterly mystifying, so best to aim at a neat summary. Ro Thorpe (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was easier said than done. Actually I was impressed by your conciseness. I may even have made it longer. Ro Thorpe (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's much better, thanks. I certainly should have referred to running at the outset. Still a lot of work to do on this article, I'm afraid. John Leach (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure we can make it into somwething good. A patient innings is required... Ro Thorpe (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

"the world's second most popular spectator sport after association football"

Literally, this means

1. football
2. something else
3. cricket

I suspect it was actually intended to mean "the world's second most popular spectator sport, after association football": note comma. Peter Jackson (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ha, yes, well spotted. I'll change the wording. Thanks. John Leach (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

can we avoid bolding anything besides the article title?

The use of bolding in this article goes against the convention for both Wikipedia and Citizendium of having only the article title bolded. Anything else can be in italics or "quoted" if it needs to have special attention called to it. I would thus like to change the use of bolding throughout this article, but wanted to check with the authors first. Pat Palmer (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2023 (CDT)

Batsman?

I seem to remember hearing that the official laws have been revised to replace this with a gender-neutral term. Peter Jackson (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2023 (CDT)

Yes, it appears to have been revised to "batter". Thanks, Peter. Pat Palmer (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2023 (CDT)

That is right, Peter and Pat. Not sure exactly when without checking but last season (2022) was the first in England with batters. Apart from the neutrality aspect, the term complies grammatically with bowler and fielder. I'll change it in the older cricket articles. Thanks again. John (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2023 (CDT)