Talk:Chest on (cricket)

Hi,

I've suggested a merge with Side on (cricket) as I feel both articles will be quite short and are very similar to each other. The differences and similarities can be discussed adequately in one article, thus making it easier to develop one good article, rather than the two rather poor ones at the moment. Please discuss... –MDCollins (talk ) 18:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

I have no objections to the merge. What title do you think would be appropriate for the merged article? Maybe Stance (cricket), or Chest on and side on (per WP:NAME#Use of "and")? --Muchness (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

I think Stance (cricket) is probably best. I will have a look at it shortly. I'm not much of a player myself, so will merge the information as best I can and then leave it to others! Probably needs some references too in case it looks like WP:OR.–MDCollins (talk ) 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

I do not believe stance is a good option for the title of this article as it will easily be confused with the batsman's stance, and is not often used to refer to the bowler's action. Chest on and side on would be a much better title. I also feel it would be appropriate to separate the articles on bowling stances and batting stances. Elostirion (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Nothing was done about this for ages, so I copied one sentence into the batting article, and merged the rest into Fast bowling. StAnselm (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Redirect-Class cricket pages
• Low-importance cricket articles
• Redirect-Class cricket articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Cricket articles