Talk:2011 Cricket World Cup/Archive 1

Venue Change

if due to some reasons if a venue is not found usable, will BCCI has any other locations as back up? 219.43.77.97 (talk)

This is not a place for general discussion. --ashwinikalantri ^talk 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(Replying to above comment, this is not User 19.43.77.97:) "If 'this is not a place for general discussion', then why not you RECOMMEND a place which can be discussed?" "That's not my job," replies AshwiniKalantri. "My job, as a Wikipedia administrator, is to revert spam in Wikipedia articles."

"He won't get out of here unless you do."

"That's not my problem," he shot back.

"Fine, be like that. I'm contacting your boss."

"No, don't do that, that that that's that's silly," he stutters. Then he got desperate. "Okay, okay, you got me, I'll do anything, just don't contact my boss, please!"

"Now, now, don't panic. I just need you to recommend some sites for User 19.43.77.97."

"Okay, um, there's [Please state some sites here in bold and italics if you do not want the above situation actually happening in real life.]."

Anyway, what I'm really trying to point out, AshwiniKalantri, is you're honestly being very rude to User 19.43.77.97. He is new to Wikipedia and its system. Please do not criticize him for things he does not know. If you are a Wikipedia administrator, you are being extremely rude and the statement that you have stated above discourages people to explore Wikipedia. I am not a Wikipedia administrator myself, but I am in the neutral zone and I can see both sides of the story. When you have time, I would like you to delete the comment you typed above, so User 19.43.77.97 will not take offense to the comment. You may do this at your leisure. Case dismissed. Thank you.

This is case 1 of undefined cases by undefined.

Flag if Ireland

The flag included for Ireland in the tables is inaccurate and inappropriate. Ireland field a 'cross-border team- representing both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) - there is, I believe an accepted flag flown at all ireland matches of three green shamrocks on a dark blue blackground - this would be the appropriate flag to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.133.110 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I too feel this is correct. We should not consider using IRELAND cricket flag and West Indies Cricket Flag as inappropriate. Just see in Rugby Union. The flag of Ireland Rugby Union (not the logo) is used for their national team in tags like

• Ireland

--Karyasuman (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The flag to which you refer is the flag of the Irish Cricket Union: File:Cricket_Ireland_flag.png

Comes.amanuensis (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted Cricket Ireland directly. They have confirmed expressly they have no objection whatsoever to use of the flag on Wikipedia or anywhere else. What they protectis the copyright in the cricket ball logo logo. So we can use the flag, now, right? I can forward the email I received from them if necessary. Mpjmcevoy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC).

WP:+1

Come to think of it, given we've got one coming up on the horizon, I suppose this one is the "+1" really. Chris cheese whine 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of matches

Is the number of matches wrong or the format description wrong? By the format description, it looks like 49 match event. But the match distribution to each country gives a total of 51 DesiStrider (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Where will the final be played at?

The structure section mentions the final will be played at Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai. But the Semi-finals and final section states it will be played at Eden Gardens in Kolkata. Which is the actual venue? -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Venues

I'm unable to find a source for the list of venues, only able to find details on the allocation of matches per country. The section of the ICC's website is currently empty [1] so I'm suspicious this could be guesswork, the fact there's nine 'confirmed' Indian grounds in the table when the previous paragraph states India will host '29 matches across eight venues' makes it even more dubious. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

|- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2

why are pictures not at all related to the venues being added? for example a building with a title quark? trakesht (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

groups

it could be to that table or ranking might chage two or three spots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.133.160 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 20 September 2009

I've rolled back your edits. This is not a forum for unsourced speculation. --Digestible (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Venues

Are we going to create a different article for list of venues? Are we going to have a brief summary of each or what? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

each stadium already has its own page. No need to create multiple pages.--Ashwinikalantri (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Continents

Some fool put 2 ACAs in the continent section making the reader unable to differiantiate between the 2 . i have changed it to africa and americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.8.127 (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Show Kashmir as Integral part of India. Update the map of India shown asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.198.152 (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 210.212.136.178, 15 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Kindly dont show the indian subcontinent map in lOCCATIONS at matched being played, while it is hurting indian sentiments about kashmir shown in pak territories.

The maps can be avoided while promoting a sporting event and thus avoiding any mis-direction.

regards

210.212.136.178 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Specifically, please spell out what code in what section you'd like to have changed. "Please change X to Y." --Darkwind (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Raise this issue for the map at India location map --Ashwinikalantri (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I visited the talk page of Kashmir at Talk:Kashmir and asked for someone there to follow up this map. Comes.amanuensis (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

List of matches

There is no need to add the list of the matches to the main article. They are available in the respective articles for Group A matches, Group B Matches, Knockouts and the Final. There is a link for these articles in the respective sections. Kindly dont undo or add. --Ashwinikalantri (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding the list of matches on multiple locations is unnecessary. The list should be removed from the main article. This makes it more readable. --Ashwinikalantri (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The world Cup is first and foremost about the matches and so they are the most important thing for the page. The Group A matches, Group B Matches, Knockouts and the Final articles are only spin off articles that have more information because it all does not fit on to the one page. Go and look at some other world cup articles of any major sport and see if it does what you are saying. And removing it does not make it more readable, it only makes it shorter to read.--Blackknight12 (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The page already shows the gist of the matches in the form of table and flow chart. This gives an excellent idea of what is happening. Adding an additional list here is just duplication of the matter. For match details, pages for each group, the knockouts and the finals is there.--Ashwinikalantri (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style - Article titles, headings, and sections. Here you will find that if a dedicated article already exists, then just a summery should be given and main article link should be inserted.--Ashwinikalantri (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The list and chart only give the statistics of what's happening, and even then only within its own group. The "list" is not a duplication but a summary (as it says in Wikipedia:Manual of Style - Article titles, headings, and sections) to the main articles 2011 Cricket World Cup Group A, 2011 Cricket World Cup Group B and so on. For example:

Summary

20 February 2011 09:30
New Zealand	Match 2	Kenya	M. A. Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai

Main

20 February 2011 09:30

New Zealand	v	Kenya

M. A. Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai Attendance:

Well then, find a concise way of presenting it. Make a table with date, teams and stadium. We can remove the list from the knockout and finals as the flow chart gives the exact same details. --Ashwinikalantri (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you are so persuaded into removing the matches from the article, they are they main topic of the tournament and the article, yet you are hiding them, that is absurd. Take a look at some of these other articles, 2007 Cricket World Cup, 2010 FIFA World Cup and 2011 Rugby World Cup their matches are not hidden. I think we should leave it the way it is and the way it is supposed to be. You are the only one who has even suggested doing what you have done and I have not seen it done else where. I will revert it back to normal and please don't start an edit war. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a Manual of Style article, beautifully drafted for people like you who know little about presentation and formating. What is absurd is you didnt start there and jumped right into editing important articles. Spend some time on this lengthy page that will enlighten you.

--Ashwinikalantri (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly it looks like you are the one who knows little about editing altogether, you don't even have 500 edits to your name, so don't go around insulting people. Secondly I have been editing cricket related articles for years now and I have not had any problem like this before. And lastly your current edits of the article are contradictory to the ones that you were contending to before. First you want to remove that list of matches because you think its too long and that you can look at them in the spin off articles, but now not only do you keep the list but you make the article even longer by replacing the summary list with the main list of matches, making the article twice as longer (which will get even longer when the scores are added) and making the spin off articles obsolete. Obviously you are not doing this for the quality of the article, which you have significantly lowered, so I will be tagging you for disruptive editing for now and revert back to normal agian. If you continue with your vandalism you will be blocked.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you lost your mind? Are you picking on me? Now you go ahead and remove everything that I have done in the article? Dont you need to discuss that before? I had made the list just like it is in older world cup articles. Dont make such changes without discussing.--Ashwinikalantri (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why have you added separate section headings for each match? The index looks really big and horrible with so many headings. You are saying you have made the list just like it is in older world cup articles, please take a look at the format followed in 2007 Cricket World Cup. There aren't any sub-headings for matches. --- Managerarc ^talk 21:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 I have changed the list so that it doesnt show in the index--Ashwinikalantri (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Ashwinikalantri is behaving as if Cricket World Cup is his own page. All the info you supply here must be with the consent of everyone, not just one person. Please stop rash editing.--Karyasuman (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Karyasuman, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. But isn't it a bit too harsh, accusing me in the middle of nowhere? Let me know if you have a problem with anything that I have added. I am open to discussion. And unlike many, I dont scare away from saying I am wrong. --ashwinikalantri ^talk 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Key to colours in group tables

This key for the group table is not needed as there is already a line below the table stating the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinikalantri (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The green highlights create confusion. Nobody has qualified for QF the tournament did not start so dont show green highlights please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.8.95 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Matches section

There is a dispute going on about what to have in the matches section, it had been in this form for quite a while but Ashwinikalantri says that it should be in the current form that is is in now. Which form is the better quality, more readable and most appropriate for the article?--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the older format was better. We dont need to give all the info about the match on the main page. Its better if we have main info on the side pages and let the main info remain on the 1st page. Please change the page back to the older version. It is better.--Karyasuman (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say remove the match numbers from the main article, we don't need that. Keep the score summaries in the main article and details of each match should go to the group articles for example in 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage. Besides there is no point in having just the list of matches in the main article. Its better to have a similar format for all the WC articles. Invite other members from WT:CRIC for consensus. --- Managerarc ^talk 10:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Managerarc I am in the process of keeping all the articles consistent, which Karyasuman has offer to help with, and the matches that the current version has will change to the score of the match once it has been played.

Agree . Just the list of matches is no use. Either complete summery or nothing (with match summaries pushed is a separate article for each group). The summaries are consistant with older World Cup pages. Also is there a need for a tabulated key in the group section? The group table is quite self explanatory. Also the key doesnt serve the purpose as it is located away from the tables (specially table for Group B). As for the match no, I dont mind not seeing them.--Ashwinikalantri (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Karyasuman.

That is not just a list, it is a summary of the matches, as I told you earlier. There is no use, or any point in having the same thing on two pages. Leave the Limited overs matches template for the spin off articles.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Blackknight12, Please dont revert the changes till there is a resolution. Please note that you dont own this page. I have started a discussion on WT:CRIC also, so that we reach a settlement. Just because a resolution hasn't been reached doesnt mean you can have your way. The match summaries are consistent with the earlier world cup articles. Thanks for the patience.--ashwinikalantri ^talk 11:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion shifted to WT:CRIC--ashwinikalantri ^talk 12:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As this is an edit war, and nobody seems prepared to wait until consensus is reached, I've protected the article. GedUK  13:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you--ashwinikalantri ^talk 13:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Knockout stage bracket

{{editprotected}} Could someone please change the knockout stage bracket to the following version? The use of flagicons in the current version is inappropriate, so I have replaced them with the names of the countries they represent. I have also removed the colouring from the final match as we don't know which of the teams will win, so to make one cell gold and the other silver is inappropriate. – PeeJay 14:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

	Quarter-finals				Semi-finals				Final
	23 March – Dhaka, Bangladesh
	Group A1
					29 March – Colombo, Sri Lanka
	Group B4
					Winners of Quarter-Final 1
	24 March – Ahmedabad, India
					Winners of Quarter-Final 3
	Group A2
									2 April – Mumbai, India
	Group B3
									India
	25 March – Dhaka, Bangladesh
									Winners of Semi-Final 2
	Group A3
					30 March – Mohali, India
	Group B2
					Winners of Quarter-Final 3
	26 March – Colombo, Sri Lanka
					Winners of Quarter-Final 4
	Group A4
	Group B1

I guess the flags are in place because the tournament is being played in 3 different countries. This flag helps in marking the country the match is being played.

The gold and silver is being used to denote Winner and runner up. But I guess we could do away with that. It looks gaudy.--ashwinikalantri ^talk 15:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I am sorry. Didnt see that you had added the country name too. It looks good.

The names should be left blank in stead of "Winner of...". Its quite self explainatory in the flow chart.--ashwinikalantri ^talk 15:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 updated. I've left the "winner of" out for now, until there is agreement on that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Kolkata match shifted to Bangalore

{{editprotected}} Please change the venue of the 27th Feb match between India and England from Kolkata to Bangalore. This is a source for the change, will provide more as more agencies report it.

Also, it would be good if 'Bengaluru' is changed to 'Bangalore', as the Bengaluru article is named Bangalore. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 14:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The match hasnt been resigned to any one yet. Bangalore is being tipped but not confirmed. We should wait till official word.

On another note, there should be mention of this event in the article. If an administrator could do the honors? cricinfo article--ashwinikalantri ^talk 18:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Deadline extended by 10 days--ashwinikalantri ^talk 05:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please give you exact wording you require and where it should be added. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Add request

{{editprotected}} This should be added in the Preprations section.

Eden Gardens loses India-England fixture

The ICC has denied Eden Gardens as the host of the World Cup game between India and England on February 27. The ICC's inspection team felt that the stadium will not be ready in time for the match. The inspection team included some of the leading experts in the field of stadium and ground preparation. No alternate venue for the match has yet been named. Bangalore has been tipped to be the replacement venue.ESPNcricinfo (January 27, 2011), Eden Gardens loses India-England fixture, retrieved January 29, 2011 The BCCI had requested the ICC to grant a 10 day extension, but it was rejected by the ICC.ESPNcricinfo (January 29, 2011), ICC rejects plea for Eden Gardens extension, retrieved January 29, 2011

--ashwinikalantri ^talk 10:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a complete copy-paste from the source. Please write this in your own words and also use proper citation templates for references, see Template:Citation. --- Managerarc ^talk 10:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten and added citations in proper format.--ashwinikalantri ^talk 11:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone help with the citations?--ashwinikalantri ^talk 11:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See this. Bangalore is confirmed to host the 27th Feb match between India and England.

Please change the Group B fixture of 27th February, between India and England, the venue of which currently reads as Eden Gardens, Kolkata. It should be changed to Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bangalore. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 12:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not confirmed according to the official ICC website. We should wait for confirmation. --ashwinikalantri ^talk 13:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The news report is a reliable source. We can't count on the official website to be updated. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 13:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Even cricinfo.com says that Bangalore is a probable choice, not confirmed. "BCCI president Shashank Manohar said that there was no need for the BCCI to call any emergency meeting, but pointed out that he would consult his "office bearers" to finalise the venue for the match. It is learnt that Bangalore is tipped to be a favourite. "99 % it will be Bangalore," an ICC source said." Rediff it seems has jumped to conclusions. --ashwinikalantri ^talk 13:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Rediff has jumped the gun and there has been no official announcement. I have updated the article accordingly. Nev1 (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See this Cricinfo report. I guess now we can update the venue to Bangalore. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 13:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Yep! Its been confirmed as Bangalore. The schedule needs to be changed. Bangalore to host India-England game--ashwinikalantri ^talk 06:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Page protection has expired. GedUK  13:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So why is this locked?

What disputes are there exactly? How on earth is this any more controversial than say, 2011 Egyptian protests? Lugnuts (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted to ask the same thing. How is this controversial, or has significant edit warring taken place? TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 12:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked the admin to explain this. Seems a bit over the top IMO. Lugnuts (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I (eventually) got a very wishy-washy response regarding this. It's now Feb 1st, but it's still locked... Lugnuts (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you thought my response was wishy-washy (and that I didn't answer immediately, though had you looked through my edit history I wasn't online much), and that you didn't actually ask me for follow-up, but still. If you looked at the protection log or page history, you'll see that protection expires at 13:27 today. GedUK  09:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Page protection has now expired. If the edit war starts up again, I'll issue warnings, and will protect and block as necessary. GedUK  13:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that this page is locked for editing. I see ZERO evidence of vandalism in the history, even going all the way back to December last year. It's fine if the cabal are going to update it, but the Canada vs. England warm-up match finished almost an hour ago and the results still aren't up formally. Either open this up to editing, or update it a LOT faster. Either way, I'd like a reasonable explanation for the edit lock please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.10.210 (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Skimming, I don't see any vandalisim either, anyone is free to request the page be unprotected at WP:RPP CTJF83 12:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Go back to the 2 Feb when I protected it, there's lots of vandalism around that time. Obviously there's been none since. I'm happy to review this protection though. GedUK  13:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AroundTheGlobe, 1 February 2011

{{edit protected}} change TBC to Banglalore - Match 11 on Feb 27 will take place at Banglaore (source [2]).

Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have already made this request two sections above! --ashwinikalantri ^talk 10:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Page protection has expired. GedUK  13:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Warm up games

Do we need to hide the warm up games? This quite weird? Also in the group stages, do we need to have a key table? The point tables are quite universal and self explanatory. And the key table doesnt serve the purpose for the group B table as its half a page away. If really needed, a line is small font should be added under the two tables indicating the legend.-ashwinikalantri ^talk 14:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 180.149.8.113, 9 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove the green highlights from the group tables as this creates confusion,nobody has qualified for the quarter finals but it makes it seem like four countries already did so please dont show it until someone has qualified for it

180.149.8.113 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:De Ghuma Ke.ogg

The image File:De Ghuma Ke.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done--ashwinikalantri ^talk 10:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)