4

All -tagged questions have also been tagged with thus far.

From Wikipedia:

In the sport of cricket the word wicket has several distinct meanings:

  1. a set of stumps and bails;
  2. the pitch; or
  3. the dismissal of a batsman.

In terms of tag significance (and not in technical terms), how does differ from using , , or as tags? For more information, see Grounds of Tag Creation.

What is the justification for using as a tag? Does suffice? Can be a tag-synonym for ?

UPDATE: The purpose of this question is to reasonably scope useful tags...not place stringent requirements on what merits creation of a tag. Adding a tag based on mention or reference would not be considered reasonably scoped or useful unless the question is about said tag. This question was tagged with , mentions wickets, but is NOT about wickets. Furthermore, this question was tagged , but contains no mention of wickets.

5
  • Are you sure that the wicket tag is being used everywhere that cricket is? My quick search indicates 104 questions tagged with cricket, but only 29 of those also include the wicket tag.
    – Spinner
    Commented May 14, 2013 at 13:47
  • Yes. My quick search has been tagged above. There are 29 questions that have the wicket tag. cricket = 104. wicket = 29. cricket + wicket = 29.
    – user527
    Commented May 14, 2013 at 13:49
  • I see what you mean now: cricket is used with all wicket questions, but wicket is not used with all cricket questions. Would suggest rephrasing the question to make that clear.
    – Spinner
    Commented May 14, 2013 at 13:54
  • @Spinner Great catch. Edited.
    – user527
    Commented May 14, 2013 at 13:55
  • Regarding the questions highlighted as examples of wicket-tagged-yet-wicket-less questions: I think the first question, about UDRS, is actually fair game to be tagged with wicket (or as I would prefer, dismissal), since it does actually relate to dismissals (namely, the reviewing of them). I think this is actually where tags are most useful: an instance where the tag name is not mentioned in the question but the question still relates to the tag subject, thus rendering the tag useful for search purposes.
    – Spinner
    Commented Jun 18, 2013 at 19:57

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4

I dont think making wicket as a synonym for cricket makes sense, I have a feeling that it would be something like racket being synonym for tennis, or post being a synonym for rugby.

I do feel that the tag wicket is somewhat redundant though. I mean is the term wicket used for any other sport?

3
  • Croquet uses it also.
    – user527
    Commented May 15, 2013 at 13:45
  • @edmastermind29 i stand corrected, although the link you posted has nothing to do with "wicket" or "croquet" :) as far as I can see.
    – posdef
    Commented May 20, 2013 at 7:55
  • The racket tag has been introduced, and the discussion has reemerged.
    – user527
    Commented Jun 10, 2013 at 21:50
3

Unless justified otherwise, I do not see the significance of maintaining a tag if it is exclusively a subset of the tag.

As posdef states, it feels redundant.

Just to be clear, Spinner makes a legitimate point regarding the "utility of the tag." If there are questions about wickets, then the tag is welcome...especially if the subset is substantial enough to hold weight without being redundant.

However, the actual usage of the tag included mere mention or reference to wickets without the question being about wickets. This question was tagged , mentions wickets, but is NOT about wickets. Furthermore, this question was tagged , but contains no mention or reference of wickets. Therefore, the tag, based on the aforementioned questions, were not being reasonably scoped or useful. I was initially favorable, and am in favor if reasonably scoped, for the use of a tag. See this for more info.

1
  • 1
    I am of the opinion that if it is to be maintained, the wicket tag should be scoped to refer to only one of the three definitions you mention in the original post. Strictly speaking, definition 1 is the correct one (Law 8), but in practice I believe definition 3 is the one that is most frequently meant, and for that I would raise the possibility of creating a dismissal tag. The three definitions are not sufficiently similar for grouping under the same tag to be of any use, in my opinion.
    – Spinner
    Commented Jun 18, 2013 at 18:14
1

It depends on whether tags that form subsets of other tags are automatically considered unsuitable. As a subset, I think is fair enough (and 29/104 = 28% seems a reasonable percentage for a subset), but I'm less convinced regarding the actual utility of the tag.

If it was deliberately widened to include other sports (e.g. made a synonym of ) I think it would lose its utility. As it stands it at least it provides a way to quickly find questions relating to dismissals in cricket (definition no. 3 seems to be the de facto usage here).

2
  • What's the difference between finding questions regarding dismissals in cricket and say...home runs in baseball, or touchdowns in american football, or goals in football (soccer) or ice-hockey? Are you saying we should define tags to further specify in-game, in-sport characteristics?
    – user527
    Commented May 19, 2013 at 5:28
  • Making strikeout a synonym of wicket or creating synonyms to group several sports is not what I am suggesting (and, quite frankly, would be confusing). If Sports SE had a goalpost, pitch, or strikeout tag, it would be akin to the wicket tag as a subset of its respective sport, in my opinion. This is why I'm requesting clarification and justification on using the wicket tag altogether.
    – user527
    Commented May 19, 2013 at 5:33

You must log in to answer this question.