Talk:batsman

Equinox reverted my fixes to the page without understanding what I did. I updated the definition of batsman to refer to the page batter, which contains all of the information that had previously been in this page, but is now contained in a more correct place. 86.144.158.11 16:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The page was correct before and is still correct now. I understand the official rules of cricket may have changed. Equinox ◑ 02:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What you're trying to do is the equivalent of editing shark to remove the fact that it is a fish and replacing it with the facts that it is cold-blooded, it's a vertebrate, that it lives in water, moves with fins and breathes with gills. By doing so you create a whole lot of unnecessary duplication. Do you really think that's a good way to manage a dictionary?! 86.144.158.11 22:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The change contains several fixes to statements which were unequivocally wrong, and tidies up the dictionary by removing unnecessary duplication (see point made in reference to shark, above). Yet, every time, you undo every one the changes, each time making a different excuse. First, it was about what is official. Then it was the absurd claim that it was more accurate previously. Then an objection to the use of historical, and finally something irrelevant about prescribing language. If you knew anything about cricket, you'd understand that this change is precisely to describe language as it is used, as opposed to how it used to be. What exactly is it about accepting this modern usage that terrifies you so much to make you behave this way? Cricket.girl.777 (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The argument has always been the same; the fact that the rules have changed the wording doesn't mean the English language has changed instantly with it. We describe the language, we don't prescribe it. If batsman begins to be used only of male batters and that trend continues for long enough, we can start looking into whether adding usage labels would be appropriate, but it simply unequivocally is not right now. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 14:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I already addressed your point about describing not prescribing above. Assuming you're referring to the change in the Laws of Cricket, the rules changed in response to the change in the language, not the other way round. To argue that usage of batter is rare is, frankly, delusional. Cricket.girl.777 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The original summary reads, and I quote, "reflect that batter is now the official term". A descriptive dictionary does not change just because the "official term" is something else. I've never argued that batter is rare and I'll gladly remove that label from the synonyms. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You say that you never argued that batter is rare. Yet you literally edited the entry to add that very claim, and then locked the page! Cricket.girl.777 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you people don't even bother to look at the changes you're making does at least explain why what you've been saying makes zero sense. And if you're the self-appointed gatekeepers then it also helps explain why the quality of information all across this site is so poor, and why the Wiktionary project has been such a failure. Cricket.girl.777 (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, as soon as you're proved wrong, you start screaming "racism" and "gatekeeping". Equinox ◑ 01:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

He implicitly acknowledged you were wrong, by accepting one of the edits on the quiet. Oh, you hadn't noticed? Well, attention to detail never was your strong point. As for gatekeeping, I think you need to look it up in a dictionary. Never mind, the entry on Wiktionary is probably wrong. Cricket.girl.777 (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)