Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2014 January 17
| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 16 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 18 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 17 edit
The word "GLYPH" edit
Hello; for the record I use Wikipedia more than often, thank you. Reason, it (GLYPH) was used on TV's Jeopardy 1/16/014. Under astrological answer. It was used with audacious, intemperate, & your glyph said to represent Ram's horns? The Jeopardy answer was Aries, which I'm one. Proud of it. ?? How does glyph relate to astrology ? My guess its a icon or symbol. Please respond? THANK YOU AGAIN - I tried Wiktionary, more confusing! jfi [redacted email addr.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbobx4 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- A Glyph is a symbol or icon as you said and it is not restricted to astrology. See Astrological_sign#Western_zodiac_signs. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
"Australia wins by a wicket" edit
That was the headline this morning after last night's cricket one day international between Australia and England. Australia scored the winning run with three balls to go in their allocated 50 overs, having lost nine wickets. England lost only eight wickets accumulating its score, so in fact lost fewer wickets. That makes the headline look a bit silly, but I know it's the standard way of reporting these things. While the number of wickets is important (critical when it reaches ten!), the number of overs is also extremely relevant, especially when fewer wickets are involved.
The "won by x wickets" form of the result makes sense for old fashioned four innings games. For the team batting second it's really the only way of reporting the result briefly. But why the exclusive emphasis on wickets in one day game "headline" results, when deliveries are at least equally, if not more important?
Is this some official policy from the ICC? Is there a published justification for it? HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- The ICC's Regulations for One-day Internationals simply say "Law 21 shall apply". Law 21 of the Laws of Cricket states: "7. Statement of result
If the side batting last wins the match without losing all its wickets, the result shall be stated as a win by the number of wickets still then to fall." http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-21-the-result/ They don't justify why it is that way: that is the law and that is accepted by the ICC in its Regulations. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- It certainly leads to result statements that must confuse outsiders. In last night's match, the short form result is "Australia won by 7 wickets". However, England lost nine wickets, and Australia lost three. HiLo48 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- There's a lot of things about cricket which must confuse outsiders. Doesn't mean they should be changed. As you know, "Australia won by seven wickets" means they had seven wickets standing when they reached the target. Makes perfect sense to me. --Viennese Waltz 22:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- But this isn't an old, traditional part of a game that's been going for well over 200 years. Those ancient traditions are important, but not relevant to this relatively recent development. It's a limited overs match. I don't understand why such results are presented without reference to that limit. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, a test match has a limit, too: usually 5 days. If there's not a result at stumps on the 5th day, it's called a draw, even if one side was within 5 runs of victory with 5 wickets to spare and the other side would certainly have lost if 10 more minutes of play had been allowed. That's a weird outcome. Just replace the days limit with an overs limit, call it an ODI, and you've got the same essential set up as a test match. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- But this isn't an old, traditional part of a game that's been going for well over 200 years. Those ancient traditions are important, but not relevant to this relatively recent development. It's a limited overs match. I don't understand why such results are presented without reference to that limit. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- There's a lot of things about cricket which must confuse outsiders. Doesn't mean they should be changed. As you know, "Australia won by seven wickets" means they had seven wickets standing when they reached the target. Makes perfect sense to me. --Viennese Waltz 22:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)