Talk:Cricket/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: ODI history tweak

message: An excellent start.  Couple of linking niggles:
*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
and I prefer dmmaus's text above, but
*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.
-- ALoan (Talk) 00:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: 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: 
# One umpire is known as the Square-Leg Umpire, the other is known as?
# Are there any fielding restriction concerning off side and on sides?
# 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:
# Batsman
# Ball, bat etc.
# A closeup pic of a match in progress.
¶ 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  11 August 

message: Glad to see that the loose bricks have been cemented. Here are some reverts that I have carried out:
# The pitch is predominantly clay - Many pitches in India lack any sort of grass -- I've corrected that.
# 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.
# 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. ¶ 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)
thread_title: 13 Aug