Talk:Cricket/oldpoll

Note: This poll is no longer active, and is presented here for informational purposes.

Poll on where "Cricket" should be disambiguated

~~This poll will be closed in 2 weeks, September 2, after which the consensus (or lack thereof) will be noted.~~

Preamble

There has been a long-standing debate on whether:

the article cricket should be about the sport, with a link to the insect article and a separate disambiguation page (as is the case currently), or
the article cricket should itself be a disambiguation page. (In addition to the sport and the insect, the disambugiation page also lists Cricket (darts), Cricket (airplane), Cricket (magazine), Plymouth Cricket, Cricket (software), Chrząszcz, and The Crickets).)

For this vote, the first option will be called "the Sport option", and the second option will be called "the Disambig option".

History

Historically, in October 2001, the main cricket article was a disambiguation page ([1], now in the page history of page of cricket (disambiguation)).
The pages that are now cricket (insect) and cricket date back to February 2002 (then at cricket (insect) [2] and cricket (sport) [3] respectively, with cricket being a simple disambiguation page [4])
The sport article was renovated by User:Nichalp and others in August 2004, and moved to the main cricket article, with the old cricket article moving to cricket (disambiguation) - see Talk:Cricket (disambiguation).

Arguments for the Sport option

Please keep these brief. One line, if possible.

The vast majority of articles (2300 out of 2500) that link to cricket refer to the sport. These would all have to be changed. (All links were changed from cricket (sport) when the sport moved to cricket.)
Among the first 20 google hits for "cricket", 17 are about the sport and none [5] is about the insect. The first google hit for the insect is at #101 - [6] - while the American Cricket Association (related to the sport in the United States) is #39.
In most areas of the world, the word "cricket" primarily refers to the sport.
When counting "English speakers" as those who speak English regularly, even if not as a first language, roughly 2/3 of English speakers live outside the U.S. and would consider the word "cricket" to primarily refer to the sport.
Precedents include London (the capital of the UK, as opposed to the other places called "London") and Napoleon.
For those looking for the insect, it is one extra click either way. Therefore there would be no benefit to the reader from the change.
It is the status quo ante, has been for a year with little dispute, and change should not be made without consensus.
The overwhelming number of searches for "cricket" are likely to be for the sport. The sport is popular in England, Wales, India, Pakistan, the West Indies, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. Very few actual searches for "cricket" will be for the insect (it's not that popular a critter!)

Arguments for the Disambig option

Please keep these brief. One line, if possible.

When counting "English speakers" as only those who speak English as a first language, excluding those who speak English regularly as a second language, roughly 2/3 of English speakers live in the U.S. and would not consider the word "cricket" to primarily refer to the sport.
Precedents include Georgia, football, and America.
The policy Wikipedia:Disambiguation says "Where there is no … consensus, disambiguation pages are named after the topic itself (Table, for example)."
The articles which link to cricket can be changed automatically via a bot to link to cricket (sport) (as was done a year ago).

Votes for the Sport option

"The page cricket should contain the information about the sport, with a link to the insect and the disambiguation page at the top."

[[smoddy]] 14:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf 14:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Joolz 14:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Ngb 14:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC) -- can't believe we're even having this discussion[reply]
ALoan (Talk) 14:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ian ≡ talk 15:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--RobertG ♬ talk 15:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dunc|☺ 18:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
jguk 18:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC) I can't believe we're even having a vote on this.[reply]
MRSC 19:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC) I thought at first this was a joke.[reply]

Votes for the Disambig option

"The page cricket should contain the disambiguation page, with links to both the sport and the insect."

– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:51, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Nereocystis 14:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe we're having the discussion either. A vanishingly small percentage of the US is even aware the sport exists. —Cryptic (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please do not leave long comments in the vote sections above.

Feel free to reword the common arguments, but please do not reword the voting statements. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:51, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Why did this have to come about like this? There was no discussion about the poll before it was launched into, there was no agreement about duration or anything similar, and inaccurate statements were included. Why could the poll not have been discussed before it happened, as per Wikipedia:Survey guidelines? [[smoddy]] 14:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Au contraire, I mentioned it above, and several people commented on the possibility (including you). Sorry about the Google innacuracy -- I could swear #18 was about the insect yesterday -- but I see it was quickly fixed. Do you think the duration (2 weeks) is problematic, or are you just being difficult? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't get difficult in order to annoy. I was just generally highlighting how this poll was mismanaged. It feels to me as if you have taken the poll over, and are treating it to confirm your own point of view. You would have lowered animosity if you had structured this properly, with proper pre-poll debate. I know that isn't in vogue, but it would still have helped. [[smoddy]] 17:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why isn't it listed on WP:RM too? -- Joolz 14:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's listed at Wikipedia:Current surveys. If you think it belongs on WP:RM too, be bold! – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I have been bold. And voted :) ALoan (Talk) 14:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more point. The default with no consensus is not necessarily to go to the disambig. That was for when there was dispute of the primary meaning. That is not applicable here. There is no relevant policy to fall back on with no consensus. [[smoddy]] 14:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The default with no consensus is that we keep the status quo ante. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, the applicable Wikipedia policy is at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. It clearly states: "Some topics have a primary topic which editors agree is the primary meaning for the term (Rome, for example). In this case the disambiguation page is named Rome (disambiguation), and the primary topic keeps the topic word or phrase. . . In other cases, where there is no such consensus, disambiguation pages are named after the topic itself (Table, for example)." Do you think this policy should be changed? Or do you think it's not applicable? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  - That's a guideline. I don't think it's applicable here, no. If you do, fine. I don't really want to debate the matter, as I don't believe it will be necessary anyway. [[smoddy]] 17:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of people coming to the page will be looking for the sport. In vast areas of the English-speaking world, the sport is both prominent and the primary meaning. In other areas, the insect is the primary meaning, but is not prominent. Therefore, most people coming to the page will be looking for the sport. (moved from arguments above, since it is partially included in other reasons, and it makes arguments about what is "primary" and "prominant" that are asserted by an author but not "commonly argued".) – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC))
- I am, in all honesty, staggered that 'Most U.S. residents think of the insect' is seriously being advanced as a rationale here. The worldwide anglophone population dwarfs that of the U.S.. Why are the interests of one particular demographic being foregrounded here? --Ngb 16:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'll probably be equally staggered to learn that the non-U.S. anglophone population is smaller than the U.S. anglophone pouplation. Of the 377 million people who use English as their mother-tongue, 244 (65%) are U.S. residents. See English language for details. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    - What about the other 600m people who speak English as a second language, including 300m who "use English regularly". There are plenty of en-wiki editors in Category:User en who are not in Category:User en-N. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - A fair point. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
      - A lot of people think of the sport first; a lot think of the insect first. We're dealing with a large number of people in both cases. Sounds like disambiguation to me. Nereocystis 19:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, Quadell, as a linguist myself I wouldn't be staggered. However, I said 'anglophone', not 'mother tongue anglophone'. --Ngb 06:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my argument. I don't see why it needs to be removed from the section which is labelled "arguments", rather than "common arguments". May I ask you a question? Why is this move necessary? What does it add to the encyclopedia? [[smoddy]] 17:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that was your argument (that the worldwide anglophone population dwarfs that of the U.S.), then your argument was incorrect. It sounded like your argument was the same as "In most areas of the world, most people think of the sport when they hear the word" as above, with additional assertions about the difference between "primary" and "prominant" meanings. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    - By "my argument", I meant that I had argued that. I had written it. Anyway. Would you answer my question? (Incidentally, the worldwide anglophone community does exceed that of the US, though I am not sure by how much.) [[smoddy]] 19:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry - to answer your question, I gave my reasons for moving the section above, to wit: "(moved from arguments above, since it is partially included in other reasons, and it makes arguments about what is "primary" and "prominant" that are asserted by an author but not "commonly argued".)". As to whether the worldwide (non-U.S.) Anglophone community exceeds the that of the U.S., it depends on whether you include people who speak English as a second language as part of the "Anglophone community". I do not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
      - Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I have a habit of flow-of-consciousness comments on talk pages, which can be very confusing. I meant, "what would be the benefit of the move?" As to the other point, Anglophone means English-speaking, with no reference to whether it's a first or second language. [[smoddy]] 20:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have voted, it is clear we shouldn't be doing so and the vote (as with most WP votes) is seriously flawed: there's no general agreement on what any result means. I certainly object most strongly that Quadell should be allowed to change this well used page to a disambiguation page if he gains at least 20% of the vote (taking "consensus" to be 80%). I also object that my preferred option of not mentioning the insect at all specifically in the link the disambiguation page is not even up for the vote.

What Quadell is forgetting is that this is a worldwide, not an American encyclopaedia. Most North Americans will have the insect as the primary meaning. Most non-Americans will have the sport. But the sport is much, much, much more popular a subject to look up in Wikipedia than the insect. Quadell forgets entirely that the propensity of people to search for "cricket" is far greater amongst non-North Americans than North Americans. This is evidenced by Quadell's own google search, by the popularity of WikiProject Cricket, and by the number of links to this page, jguk 19:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jguk, I'm not forgetting that - I added that to the list of reasons for the Sport option. Why do you think I forgot it? I looked at all the evidence, and came to the (not-terribly-strongly-held) opinion that, since the majority of English speakers do not think of the sport when they hear the word "cricket", that the page should be a disambig page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

On a separate note, what did you mean by your statement that begins "I certainly object most strongly. . ."? (I'm not contesting your statement - I'm just trying to understand it.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

- Well, as far as I can see, this poll is simply a finger in the air - This poll will be closed in 2 weeks, September 2, after which the consensus (or lack thereof) will be noted.. Period. Chances are we will end up with no consensus for anything: then what? Quadell will [presumably] point to the "lack of consensus" as a reason for changing things around; others will use the "lack of consensus" as a reason for leaving things exactly as they are.

If we really want to resolve this issue with a poll (remembering that polls are considered evil), what we need is a preliminary period to decide (i) what the questions should be, and (ii) what the criteria for deciding whether a question passes or fails should be. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - You state what I will do if there is no consensus. That's quite bold of you. I would not, for the record, make such changes. I would let an uninvolved admin decide what the consensus is, and what to do about it. If this poll is considered improper, I don't object to it being cancelled and re-started. Do you think that's necessary? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    - Well, we are enjoined to be bold (in editing at least), but I am not a mindreader: I should have said "presumably" and have added such above. Please accept my apologies if I have caused any offence. However, I didn't say you would make any changes: I said you would point to the "lack of consensus" as a reason for changing things around. I think this is a reasonable inference, since you have already on two occasions pointed to the statement at Wikipedia:Disambiguation that as "the applicable Wikipedia policy" where there is "no such consensus": if you think that is the applicable policy, then presumably you think it should be applied in the event that there is no consensus here. It is notable that that guideline refers to what should happen if there is no agreement on what is the "primary topic". I would assert that the sport is the primary topic. Do you think the insect is the primary topic? Or would you say that there is no primary topic? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, lack of consensus is a reason for using a disambiguation page.Nereocystis 20:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        By this wonderful rationale, a 70-30% split in favour of the sport ends up with a disambiguation. I must say, that really is brilliant reasoning. [[smoddy]] 20:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uninvolved admins are for VfDs or really really contentious page moves where all efforts to find a consensus together have failed. This doesn't even try to make efforts. I personally would rather this poll be restarted, though I guess many others wouldn't. Admins are, after all, just users with buttons. We should attempt to make a survey fairly and without the bias that an uninvolved admin would bring (a British one would tend to sport, an American to disambiguation). Surely we can manage that together. [[smoddy]] 20:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - What would be different if the poll is restarted? We should try to be fair. Though I don't see a problem with the poll, restarting the poll isn't a big cost. Let's do it one more time, if everyone can agree on how to conduct the poll. Nereocystis 20:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]