Talk:History of cricket

A few thoughts

Hello. I looked at this to see what it says about Jim Laker, whose article I've just nominated at WP:GAN. He isn't mentioned and, apart from Basil D'Oliveira in the context of apartheid, neither is any other post-war player, not even Gary Sobers. There is only the briefest mention of Don Bradman, a couple of sentences about WG Grace and next to nothing about anyone else. The article is supposed to be a history of cricket. History is made by people and cricket is played by people. The article needs to adjust its focus.

I was interested to see a section called "Historical sources", which includes the sort of list I might expect to see in a history book, but not in an article like this. There is a Bibliography of cricket so I don't see the need for an additional list of books here, especially one with a scope that has been deliberately limited. The whole section reads as if someone has mounted a WP:SOAPBOX. It isn't about historical sources at all – it is an argument about match status prior to an official designation in 1894! I really don't think it belongs here but I'll wait and see if anyone will justify its inclusion.

Perhaps the best way to handle the history of a sport like cricket is to reduce this article to a brief introduction of several main articles that scope particular periods or countries. You already have History of cricket to 1725 and History of cricket (1726–1771), but then it seems to stop, so more articles are needed. You could see how WP:FOOTY have handled this with medieval football, English public school football games and then, from the 1850s, History of association football before diversifying into specialist topics, which are largely by country.

Thanks. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd forgotten this but the vandalism just now has reminded me. No one else has commented so I'll look at the issue again soon and take some action. I really don't see how the historical sources section can possibly be justified. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The historical sources section has been deleted although some of the factual points seemed useful and I've moved those into the earlier narrative. The article will need a lot of hard work to get anywhere near our GA standard. I think there is probably a lot of WP:OR and it really needs someone with access to several high quality book sources to take a hand and sort it all out. It definitely needs greater focus on what people accomplished, rather than just chucking a few well known names in as an afterthought – for example, a previous editor apparently decided that Don Bradman should be mentioned and tucked him in at the end of a sentence about the bodyline controversy. Never mind any of Bradman's remarkable achievements. Although History of association football has sourcing issues and isn't up to GA standard either, it is streets ahead of this and could provide some guidance on how to write a historical summary of a global sport. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

Most of the portions of this article do not contain any type of reliable source or reference. A template regarding it is already placed in the top of the article. If the uncited parts are not cited immediately, then they will be removed. I am creating this section to draw the attention of the editors who regularly edit this article. Thank you.Michri michri (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe tagging individual sections as unsourced or needing more sources would be better than blanking vast-swathes of text. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Given a number of things about the article, I'm not sure that removing stuff is the way to go - tag it as Lugnuts suggests. Part of my concern is the reliability of some of the "hard facts" which do have sources; part is the intersection between this long article and the ones at History of cricket to 1725, History of cricket (1726–1771), History of cricket (1772–1815), History of English cricket (1816–1863) (and we should probably do something about List of earliest references in English cricket) - and I think there are articles about some other countries as well, aren't there? There'd be little point gutting this one, for example, the World Series section - which would be easy to source - if we retain a load of dubious references and over-detail about the day of the week something happened in 1300. If it did. And then do nothing about the other history articles.

I'm not sure who the best person to re-work this would be right now, but it needs time and attention throughout. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Michri michri seems either not to have read or to have ignored the above two comments, and has gone ahead anyway. I fear that it's going to leave huge gaps in the article. Why not tag those sections with cn? JH (talk page) 09:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted this morning's removals because they're ridiculously easy to source in general and in no way contentious. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've sourced the balls per over bit (and cut it down a bit - that detail belongs elsewhere - but does anyone know if the last statement is still true, what with the five ball thing in The Hundred? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've taken the balls per over cite from here, but agree on the question over the H. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't remember what they call it, but iirc it's specially not called an over is it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

And the 20th century stuff is sourced easily. Not quite sure what this needs to do - the distinction between test and odd cricket seems a bit odd here - I think it can be worked in to the section rather than split off. The SA section is easy to source and is probably needed as a separate sub-section but I think can be quite a lot briefer - thoughts??? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

JH (talk page), honestly speaking that I did not open the talk page before removing a massive portion yesterday. Had I seen it before, then I would not have made such edits. I'm really sorry. Anyway, my intention was to draw the attention of some veteran editors who are capable of handling this article. I think I have succeeded in doing so. When the experienced editors like Blue Square Thing and Lugnuts look into the matter, then a novice like me perhaps has nothing to do. Ny the way, I agree that parts of this article are filled with some unnecessary and superfluous stuff, which need to be briefed. Thanks --Michri michri (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Cricket

Who developed cricket 45.121.2.90 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This is answered in the Origin sub-section of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)