Talk:2011 Cricket World Cup/Archive 4

Can we have it this way?
Can we have the table like this till the matches are over? It gives a better visual impression of what is going to happen.

ashwinikalantri talk 17:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And for the final:


 * No it's a terrible mess of flags, making it harder to decipher what's going on than simply saying "winner of match x plays winner of match y" or something along those lines. Nev1 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-final venues
Is it guaranteed that the winner of QF1 and QF2 will play in Punjab, even if India don't win their QF? I thought the original order disregarding home ground advantage would have placed them in Colombo, especially since that's the earlier of the two SF's. MarcoGallotta (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The official ICC 2011 CWC iPhone App has the venues for the semis opposite to what we have here?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.150.131 (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, check the ICC website. ashwinikalantri  talk 18:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The ICC website links to http://cricket.yahoo.com/matches/schedule/odi-match which says TBC vs TBC for both SF's, but SF1 vs SF2 for the final. Do you have a direct link to where you see it being decided? MarcoGallotta (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Go here and download the Rule-Book. You can see it clearly the rule of semi-final.--Amdmustafa (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No of Man of the Match award in statistics section
Do we really need No of Man of the Match award in statistics section ??? We have separately statistics page where everything is mentioned in detail.--Amdmustafa (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would remove it, mentioning it in the main article is enough. AIR corn (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. When you see statistics of tournaments or series, list of who won most Man of the Match awards are not usually there. I've gone ahead and removed it. Nev1 (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Criteria
What is the criteria for naming a match between Team 1 and Team 2 as Team 1 vs Team 2 or Team 2 vs Team 1 ??? I am asking this for all the match including group stage and especially QF and SF. Seeing semi-final matches, everything is up and down.Amdmustafa (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I dont completely understand what you mean, but I will try. In case of QFs and SFs, the matches were scheduled so that India and Sri Lanka play at Home. This is why the matches between Winner of QF3 & QF4 play SF1 and vice versa. I hope that is what you were looking for. ashwinikalantri  talk 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not what i mean. What i am asking is this. Which team should come first? The same question is for current knockout stage. By the way, you have removed bold score in the chart whereas in all the previous world cup article, this score has been bold. --Amdmustafa (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Usually that team batting first is listed first. Bold is only used in the knockout brackets, not in the match summaries. Even in the previous matches, the same format is being followed. ashwinikalantri  talk 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure whether I am writing it at the right place as i m a novice at editing/contributing to wikipedia, but when it comes to cricket I would suggest you to put the home team names first in fixtures. You may change the order as per batting order once the toss happens, but for the matches yet to be played home team definitely should appear first. In case of concluded games you may use any of the three conventions- Team batting first to appear first, Team won to appear first or Home team to appear first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.158.51 (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If so, kindly change it. If i change, somebody will revert it again and may identify as vandalism. And about Bold, i was talking about those brackets only. Anyhow you changed it already Amdmustafa (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Somebody" has been doing that with a lot of people. I have made the changes and discussed it with him also. Also I have shown him the Official ICC schedule. He was relying on a cricinfo typo. ashwinikalantri  talk 10:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Best bowling figures
If in a match, no bowler takes any wickets, who should be listed as the best bowler? Bowler with the best economy or no one? ashwinikalantri talk 19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * least runsLihaas (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That not right. You can see when they show Match Summary in between the match, they dont mention any bowlers if there is no wicket. It has been left blank. We should follow this procedure unless we get any different method from either ICC website or Cricinfo.--Amdmustafa (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel it is derogatory not to mention the effort. Even if TV channels dont mention, it shouldnt be too much to ask for to mention the best figures even if they havent taken any wickets.
 * Least runs shouldnt be the criteria as if a bowler bowls just 1 overs and gets smacked for 10 runs, and other bowler bowls 5 overs for 15 runs, obviously the second bowler is the better bowler. Runs/over (Economy) is a better gauge. ashwinikalantri  talk 18:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Individual match pages
Should we have a page for the Ind-Pak game, like the final has? Its gonna have one heck of a lot of a buildup.Lihaas (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Not at this point.  Thats a pure WP:CRYSTAL argument.  If, and only if, there, after the game, develops significant and most importantly lasting coverage and an indication of lasting notability then an article can be created.  Until that is proven, any article will likely be deleted. Ravendrop 18:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Knockout stage section Vandalism
In Knockout stage somebody has written 'GREAT NEWS FOR INDIAN THAT INDIA WON 2011 CRICKET WORLD CUP AFTER 28YEAR, BY DEFEATING SRILANKA'. Can anybody remove this? Or can anybody help me to remove this? I don't know how can I delete this message.Socialservice (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone had added it to the template Template:2011 Cricket World Cup knockout stage bracket. That was then transcluded onto this page with the rest of the template. You have to fix it at the template page. It should be alright now and the perpetrator has been warned. AIR corn (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can anyone please tell me how to navigate to this template from the mail article? Socialservice (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hit the edit button at the top of the page (not any of the section edit buttons). Scroll down past where you make the edits and at the bottom of the page is a list of all the templates used on the page.  Find the template and either click on it, or click the edit button besides its name.  Ravendrop 20:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Right now it looks like NZ and Pakistan are playing in the final. Are people playing silly buggers with the template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.150.131 (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Semi protected for a week. AIR corn (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just left a vandalism warning for the editor who deleted the Sri Lanka vs New Zealand final score. Tapered (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Vinupakath, 30 March 2011
Eden Gardens should be removed from venues section since no match was held at Eden Gardens.

Vinupakath (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ??? 3 games were played there!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe they are confused with Eden Park 222.154.170.230 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request from 123 plus
Could the sentence about the world cup win be changed to:

India won the 2011 World Cup, defeating Sri Lanka by 6 wickets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123plus (talk • contribs) 17:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

spelling mistake
'Fireowrks at the opening ceremony' 'Fireworks' spelling is wrong.

Unprotected?
Why has this been unprotected? The number of unhelpful IP edits are increasing. The sections about Pakistan losing host status have been removed, without explanation.  Yes Michael? •Talk 06:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was automatically unprotected because the semi-protection ran out (was set to expire the day of the final). I've requested semi-protection on it for another week or so due to IP vandalism/unproductive edits.  Just have to wait and see what an admin thinks.  Ravendrop 06:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rajmenoka, 5 April 2011


Rajmenoka (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌. You can't take photos from the Associated Press and claim them as your own.  The ownership is visible in the meta properties of the file. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)