Talk:1770 English cricket season

Opening sentence

The "umpteenth season/competition" method of opening is widespread throughout the site (e.g., 2017–18 in English football). It has probably never been debated but it is used by numerous editors and so it must qualify as having tacit consensus. If one editor does not like it and wishes to see it removed from all articles, he/she should seek an RFC at the village pump as removal would involve considerable workload and impact. The information in this article is correct because the earliest known date is undisputed and there have been that many seasons since, so there is no good reason to remove the information. Apart from anything else, the removal was done carelessly because it doesn't help the readers to see an article opening with: "The 1770 cricket season took place in England".

I have no problem with the two previous content removals because one was taking out an empty section and the other was in line with external links policy, which I support. I would remove ALL external links because so many web pages are unreliable. If a web page can be used reliably within the narrative, fine. If not, leave it out altogether. That, btw, does not apply to additional reading books.

Happy to discuss the umpteenth season point here but have restored the information in the meantime. Thanks. 213.1.11.20 (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

When there is a definitive starting point and a clear structure of seasons have been played on an annual basis - as in the case of football seasons - then that might be a valid point. Here, where you're suggesting that we reference a possible mention of a game, it's ridiculous. Was there a "1597 season"? Was there one in 1598? Or 1596? In addition it makes the first sentence far too complex and directly contravenes WP:LEAD.

I don't know the best way to open these articles. 20th century ones are easy to do, but I have no idea what is the best way to do ones pre-1890 other than that it's not best done this way. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It was discussed a long time ago and another cricket project member asserted that the new style date should be included. 1597 is a definitive starting point because that is when cricket was first definitely recorded. The sentence makes clear that it is based on a definitive startpoint. We know the gane was being played in Guildford c.1550 but that is not definitive and neither are 1596 or 1597 for the same reason. Cricket is a seasonal game so, as it was definitely being played in 1598 (Gregorian), there was a 1598 season based on that definitive reference. We know that organised matches were being played c.1611 which is only another 13 years. It does not contravene WP:LEAD in any way and there is nothing complex about it. It simply provides information about how long cricket is known to have been played, just as the footy one does and other sports too. 213.1.16.79 (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'd accept 1697 as "a definitive starting point". The earliest known "great match" was played in 1697 and it is from that point, although there is strong albeit tenuous evidence that it happened much earlier, that the game took the evolutionary step from "village cricket" to what the ACS calls "important matches", which were the pre-definition equivalent of first-class. Let me know what you think but 1697 certainly meets your request for "a definitive starting point and a clear structure of seasons (that) have been played on an annual basis (thereafter)". The new style would be superfluous and I will make the changes. 213.1.16.79 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The over complex lead was only introduced in late 2016 iirc. I'd use 1744 and not worry about having any kind of date pre-that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No, 1744 wasn't a definitive startpoint. There were top-class matches all through the first half of the 18th century and the beginning of the "champion county" concept is traced back to the 1720s, if not earlier. I suggest this simplified wording based on the footy version: "1770 was the 74th season of top-class cricket in England". As the first single-season article is 1726, the intro would have its first usage there (30th season). I suppose, to be fair, that we could start at 1728 because that is when both inter-county rivalry and the proclamation of a "best county" were first apparent, so the wording could hinge on "competitive cricket" to match "competitive football". 213.1.16.79 (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I assume your suggestion of 1744 is based on the code then written but that would be a false start for two reasons. First, the code was not universally accepted (neither was the one in 1774). Second, there were earlier written rules (see 1727). Given the emphasis on "competitive football", 1728 is the best cricketing equivalent in the light of surviving evidence although there is no doubt, based on the same evidence, that competitive inter-county cricket began earlier still. In the absence of detail, however, it would be speculative to select any earlier date unless we go right back to 1697 when we do have a definite date for the earliest known important match. Based on your argument and the footballing emphasis, 1728 is the logical startpoint. I will therefore be WP:BOLD and take that forward. 213.1.16.79 (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's better and avoids the complex date style stuff as well. Personally I'd still go for 1744 as "xth season since the first formal laws of cricket were written" or something similar, but what we have here now is better than it was and much, much, much more accessible for non-technical readers - which is the absolute priority for a lead section in my view. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much. Keeping it simple is always the best way in the end. 213.1.16.79 (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)