Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cricket fielding positions2.svg

CricketPositions[edit]

The names of cricket fielding positions are fantastically complicated, and I'd never come close to understanding them until I came across this. It's clear, it's ingenious (a red dot for the basic position, and yellow dots for variations), and it's actually pretty to look at. I can't vouch for its accuracy (the terms "long hit", "long stop" and "long leg" are new to me). Other than that it's just brilliant. Update: I should point out that it's used at fielding (cricket) and adds a lot of value to that article.

Nominate and support. - Stevage 07:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can it be made bigger? When I click on the bigger pic I don't get a really big pic, I get a File Download menu. If I then select "Open" my computer says it doesn't know what SVG is (in Windows XP) and won't open it. In any case I don't suppose the downloaded pic would have been any larger than the last - Adrian Pingstone 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an SVG - a vector graphic, which is perfect for diagrams - you can make it as large as you like. I don't know what freely available tools exist to edit with, but I can assure you its size is not an issue - in Firefox it expands to two screenwidths for me (and you don't lose detail by expanding further). I do notice the odd typo though, so if someone could edit it, it would be great (in particular "Closer" should be "closer" for case consistency in the legend). Stevage 08:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For those who can't open SVG files, Adobe has a SVG viewer. I can't compare it with any other programs out there, but it's free, quick and easy. Raven4x4x 10:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Stevage. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great Encyclopedic value --vineeth 09:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent diagram, rubbish sport. - Hahnch e n 09:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though the only cricket I know anything about is Jiminy... Good diagram, worthy of FP. --Janke | Talk 10:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Never played Cricket but this is a good diagram -- BWF89 12:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. Very impressive! I have no idea how to play cricket, but I'll assume that this diagram is correct. Pharaoh Hound 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1. Excellent. --Pharaoh Hound 21:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support can someone who knows the sport actually verify it? -Ravedave 17:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know it's not rubbish. This [1] mostly confirms it, but differs somewhat on "short leg" (but that looks like a mistake to me - would be forward square leg maybe). Also it calls "sweeper cover" "cover sweeper" and moves it backward.

This [2] mostly confirms it, but I now realise our image is missing short mid-wicket. Theirs is very generous on the "silly" positions (chickens), but they also interpret "short leg" as being forward of the crease, and "square short leg" as being level with the crease (ours has neither "square short leg" nor "forward short leg" (on the other hand, we have "backward short leg" which they're missing). Their "deep fine leg" is also a bit different. Still no sign of "long stop" or "straight hit". Stevage 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3] confirms "long stop", but adds the position of "long leg". I'm wondering whether there is another division "leg" between "fine leg" and "square leg" (would make sense for our "backward short leg"). "Square fine leg" sounds suspicious to me - that should possibly be "long leg"? Stevage 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[4] confirms long stop. [5] sort of confirms "straight hit". I see we do actually have "long leg" after all (but it's not in the dangermouse dico). So all in all, seems pretty good, just missing silly mid wicket and there seems to be some confusion about the fine leg area (not surprising, people aren't often positioned there, and it's usually in position to something creative like a someone sweeping a lot or something. I do notice that the "sweeper" position should probably be drawn as an arc, as according to dangermouse it cuts across several boundaries. We could also possibly have one or two colloquial positions like "cow corner" (according to DM it's virtually the same as backward square leg). But these are quibbles. Stevage 19:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm glad to see that Ravedave has conditionally supported only upon info being verified - caution is important with a diagram like this. Agree with Stevage that diagram does seem essentially correct. Also like Stevage have a few problems with wording and layout (e.g., I would usually think 'wicket keeper' was 'wicketkeeper' or 'wicket-keeper'; the inconsistent labelling of slips (1s, 2s, 3, 4, etc); the relative placement of bowler, wicketkeeper and slips; the runner appears to be permanent place for the batting team; and why are measurements given in yards?). Anyway, some of these may be quibbles. Ultimately the diagram is probably useful for someone that already knows a fair bit about cricket, but of limited use and rather confusing to those that don't. --jjron 09:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, these changes should be made:
  - Closer in -> nearer the batsman
  - very close in -> very near the batsman
  - toward 90 deg to the pitch -> level with batsman's popping crease
  - 1s, 2s, 3 etc -> 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc (preferably: 1^st)
  - Mid on, mid off -> Mid-on, Mid-off (there's absolutely no consensus anywhere - midwicket, mid-wicket, and mid wicket all seem equally used, but at least we can be consistent within the diagram, hyphenating everywhere)
  - Brackets around runner: (R*)
  - Add short mid-wicket: "Short" positioned between mid-wicket and silly mid-on.
  - Get rid of circles around batsman and non-striker (they're not described in the legend, don't seem to mean much?)
  - cover sweeper -> sweeper cover (more frequent on google)
- Anyone have the tools to do this? Stevage 09:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I used Inkscape. Also added stumps and stuff. Stevage 12:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I love reading about cricket because it even though it's in English, it makes no sense whatsoever. Chickens? Cow corners? Googlies? Heehee. howch e ng {chat} 22:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken - just using in the normal sense, some one who is afraid to risk injury in the name of sport :) Cow corner - a pejorative term. Googly - a real term, just a delivery that turns the opposite way to usual. Stevage 23:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - too detailed to be seen clearly without enlarging it by clicking on the picture. IE: it would look bad on the main page - you cant read the text without clicking on the picture. Not a huge deal, but being on the main page is a big part of being a featured picture. -zappa.jake (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of featured articles, it is possible for an article to be promoted but with the caveat that it's not suitable for the main page. For example, X Window core protocol is a great article but too technical for a general audience. It's fine to do the same thing for FPs. Redquark 22:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - mstroeck 09:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Terence Ong 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - And I thought American sports were complex! --Keeleysam 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment anyone curious may wish to read Comparison of baseball and cricket. Stevage 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice diagram, though ever so slightly busy. This version is definetly FP worthy, but maybe try bolding the traditional position locations to make them clearer from the variations? Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea, but what's "traditional"? I think the red dots are meant to indicate "primary" positions (eg, cover vs deep cover, point rather than silly point). However, some of them (long stop and straight hit in particular) are almost unheard of in the modern game. On the other hand, mid-off should technically be a variation on long off (or perhaps the other way around). It would be weird and misleading to bold terms like long stop...on the other hand, it's quite subjective deciding which ones to bold (should slips and gully be bolded?) Ok, I've had a stab and uploaded over my previous edit. In the end I bolded the most important positions, and made a couple of other tweaks, explained in the image history. Stevage 07:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Very helpful addition to fielding (cricket) article. -- Avenue 02:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- as original author of the image: (See Image:Cricket field positions.svg). =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportVery good, although one slight problem, with relation to the position of the Runner on the diagram. I'm a Qualified Cricket Umpire and the correct procedure with a runner is to place the On side (i.e. at Square Leg) and for the umpire to move to point. It would be easiest to remove the runner completely from the diagram, as otherwise this will make it look messy. Just to then add, when the Injured Striker is off strik, the umpire and he should move to Square Leg. --Wisd e n17 18:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cricket fielding positions2.svg Promoting Edit1 per discussion of technical accuracy. -- moondiggerdkdksa;kl 02:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]