Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cricket terms/archive1

List of cricket terms

This is a good list of the definations of cricket-related terms. Its stable, informative and neat. I hope this qualifies as a FL as it is not listed in the orthodox bulleted style.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:07, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Dictionary defintions aren't even encyclopedic, how is this different? Also, "cricket terminology" seems like it should be about terminology, whereas, say, "list of Cricket terms" would be this list. --Dmcdevit 07:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So should this be moved to list of Cricket terms?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The first point is more important. But if this list is generally deemed encyclopedic, I think it should be moved. However, I would point out again that this is a list of definitions, and there are in fact categories on Wiktionary designed for just that. --Dmcdevit 09:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this list is encyclopedic. It is a list, so it qualifies for nomination. (FLC is something new, and I'm not aware of the fine points what constitutes to being a "true" list). I've moved the article, I hope this is better.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. Wikipedia is neither a usage guide nor an idiom guide. This list definitely represents good work, but there's nothing wrong with saying it is better at Wiktionary, as it's a list of dictionary definitions. --Dmcdevit 21:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You won't find most of these terms explained in any standard dictionary. --Ngb 09:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You won't find most of our encyclopedia entries in the standard encyclopedia. And by the way, Wiktionary is about as standard a dictionary as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, if you can imagine it. --Dmcdevit 21:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point is that I disagree with your categorisation of the terminology list as 'dictionary definitons', as I suspect you're fully well aware. --Ngb 22:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I mean to say is just because they are idiomatic, or jargon, or unique to this project, does not make them encyclopedic. They are still clearly words followed by definitions of those words. --Dmcdevit 22:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But Wikipedia:What is a featured list? does not mention the criteria for what lists can be featured.  =Nichalp (Talk)=

I guess I wasn't talking about featured content, but What Wikipedia is Not. In any case, this discussion seems ill-suited for here, and I think it's a useful tool nonetheless, so I'm undecided and will not vote. --Dmcdevit 07:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be List of cricket terms (i.e. cricket not capitalised)? Yes, this is a collection of dictionary definitions. Many of which are essential to understand the other articles on cricket; rther than cluttering up the other articles with defined terms, they were all moved here. Hopefully they are all on Wiktionary too, but the important factor here is that they are all collected in one place, so it is easy to how they fit all together. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the spelling. See: List of cricket terms  =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Support - a useful and well laid out list. I've not seen such a comprehensive list of cricket terms anywhere else. - Ian ^talk 09:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Changing to Support after reflecting on points made here. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)Oppose, much as I like this and despite the fact that it strikes me as being absolutely accurate (yes, an Irish cricket fan!), it strikes me that if it were formatted as a standard list, most of the links would be red. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support (disclaimer: I have written part of, and maintained it, in the past, and will do a copyedit when time allows). As the article list says, cricket has a rich and often confusing terminology. Many of the more important terms have their own articles, or parts of an article (see Fielding (cricket)) and, like the List of cultural references in The Cantos and List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy, this is a useful companion to the main cricket articles. The debate below is whether people in the list of succession should not be linked, to avoid redlinks - it seems a trifle contradictory to oppose this list because there would be more redlinks if more terms were linked... -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think this really counts as a set of dic-defs. These are idiomatic expressions with a cultural background. Looks beautiful. —thames 15:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support (obviously!). --Ngb 15:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, here, the blue links that exist are just nice to have; the real value of this list is its text. So the "would be red links" part doesn't matter to me that much. --Spangineer (háblame) 10:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)