Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup/Archive 1

Location of the final
Surely the "tbc" status of the venue for the final is purely notional? There is surely no chance it will be anywhere other than the MCG. Luwilt (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The MCG hosted the 1992 final, so there have been rumours of a push to have the 2015 final played either in New Zealand or Sydney, in order to "even things out". So while the MCG is the biggest stadium being used for the 2015 World Cup it may not be the venue for the final. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see it not being played at the MCG. It also won't be held in Sydney.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 02:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why can't the Final be in NewZealand, atleast the game will have lot of runs and big hitters can enjoy as the crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.26.239 (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the same reason that we don't have the FIFA world cup in Andorra. Sellyme Talk 08:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

10 teams only
Ithought the no. teams were stllto be decided  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.8.127 (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

the official logo of 2015 Cricket World Cup is here

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunpc8 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence in the qualification section needs to be rewritten. It makes it sound like India and Pakistan did not make it to the second round of the tournament because of their loss to associates. Off topic, but this decision makes me wonder what is the motivation now for that associates to improve their game and build Cricket in their countries if they don't have the opportunity to advance to the World Cup. Didn't Ireland show that they have built a good team? Tuyvan (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Clearly there was no consensus to support the move to 2015 ICC Cricket World Cup in this discussion so the name before the move war should be used. If anyone thinks there is a better name, get consensus before moving the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

2015 ICC Cricket World Cup → 2015 Cricket World Cup – Needs to be moved back to the Common name. ashwinikalantri talk 03:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per common name. --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It's an official name and what's a problem in naming like this, we also have 2010 FIFA World Cup and other football world cup articles.  undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   11:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant document to read is WP:COMMONNAME. The reason it's called "FIFA World Cup" is mostly one of WP:DISAMBIGUATION - without the word "FIFA", you wouldn't know which World Cup is being discussed. There is, thankfully, only one Cricket World Cup, mostly because they were sensible when naming the T20 version. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Dweller. Jenks24 (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support--Karyasuman (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's Infact the Full Official Name of the Tournament as everyone can see from the Photo Itself and by going to the ICC's Official Website. Just by changing the Names of the Previous articles and by Putting up useless Reasons won't Help. What's Right will be done Right no matter how hard one tries to change it. I request that this Article be Protected as per it's Current Name Immediately to as Much Time Period as Possible. Thank You KS700 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * KS700, you have been asked to read the WP title naming policy, multiple times. Looks like you dont have time for that. I see that you are new here at WP. So let me make it clear for you. Its WP policy to use common names (Bill Clinton not William Jefferson Clinton). WP, being so widely edited has a set of policies, which you need to follow. I suggest you read them before making more edits. ashwinikalantri  talk 00:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support ashwinikalantri  talk 00:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AshwiniKalantri, I have Read the Whole WP title naming policy. I see you are Right over here on the Common Naming Policy which states All these things. But as u also see that the word ICC Cricket World Cup is as Much Common and Infact even more Popular then the word Cricket World Cup itself. As you see the Full Official Name of the Tournament is ICC Cricket World Cup and not Cricket World Cup as ICC is the Main Organizer/Administrator of the Tournament just like in FIFA where all the world cups have been named as starting with their Respective year with FIFA World Cup. For Eg. Like starting from the First 1930 FIFA World Cup, 1974 FIFA World Cup, etc. to the Most Recently held 2010 FIFA World Cup. I have Full Legitimate Evidences to Prove this as you can yourself see on the ICC's Official Website (which is http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/) but some users just want to ignore it. I therefore kindly Request you to do what You, I and almost Everyone agrees that what the Proper Name should Be. I hope your coordination will be Helpful and Appreciated. Thank You KS700 (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * KS700, you still dont get the difference between common name and official name. Common name is something that we use regularly. You dont see people referring the World Cup as ICC Cricket World Cup, do you? The same was as Bangalore is the name of the article not Bengaluru although that is the official name. It depends on the usage.


 * You dont need to prove anything here. We all know that ICC Cricket World Cup is the Official name. But here at WP, there is a policy to use names that prople can more easily relate to and are more commonly used in day-to-day life. Hope that helps. I think you will find people disagreeing with you even at WT:CRIC. I think its time you drop it. ashwinikalantri  talk 05:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The venues are too big!
Not the grounds themselves, but our section on them.

I know it won't affect all users, but with my laptop I'm forced to scroll left and right to see it all. That's unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Plenty of editing of the article, but nobody looks here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Does nobody else care? HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dude, chill out. I've made the whole thing smaller, but it really was something you could have easily done yourself. – PeeJay 21:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I don't understand the need for the personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty complex table - I don't think it's that simple. Hack (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not complex at all. And it wasn't really a personal attack, you just didn't need to post three times in two days just to get a reply. If no one had seen the message the first time, what made you think that posting two more times would make it more likely for them to see it? – PeeJay 10:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, that's twice you've told me that I'm incompetent. Thank you. It's good editing to pay as much attention to an article's Talk page as to the article itself. There were lots of changes happening to the article, and obviously nobody looking here. I use a Watchlist. It alerts me equally to edits to the Talk and to articles. Do you use a Watchlist? I guess you must, since you're such an expert here. So why the fuck didn't you respond? I'm sort of used to this sort of incompetence. It happens a lot with fans excited about sporting events. But it's bad editing. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is calling anyone else incompetent, so please don't put words in my mouth. If you think people are likely to respond to a post on a page about an event that is still two years away after only one day, you clearly haven't been here very long. Perhaps the only thing I am accusing you of is naivete. There was nothing wrong with the page on my screen, and probably not on the screens of many others who saw your post, so perhaps people thought you were just griping over nothing; perhaps going overboard and calling things "unacceptable" was a step too far on your part. Anyway, enough of this now; I've fixed your problem with the article. Your problem with other people's editing practices, however, I cannot fix, so I suggest we close this discussion here. – PeeJay 12:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You haven't even read my original post properly, or you wouldn't have written that post that way. Now, piss off like a good boy, and go and find some manners and some brains. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Now now, no need to resort to such foul language. I suggest you think before you post next time. Anyway, if you would care to read my post properly, you would see that I was implying that your issue with the article was one that only affected a minority of viewers and was therefore not worth dealing with as urgently as you believed. Lest you think otherwise, I ought to remind you that the world does not revolve around you or how Wikipedia articles appear on your laptop (which I suggest might be a little out of date if it can't handle screen resolutions wider than 1024 pixels). – PeeJay 22:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh FFS, I'm clearly dealing with an arrogant prick here. You STILL haven't read my original post properly. Or you're incompetent. Or just plain rude. And you DON'T touch others' posts here. THAT'S against policy. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're digging a pretty big hole for yourself with all this aggressive language. And I don't think there was much of your original post that needed reading: the venues section used to be too wide for your screen, you threw a tantrum until some kind person came along to fix it for you. Get over yourself. – PeeJay 08:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, but not often, I encounter another person whose views on almost everything are so very different from mine (not normally a problem in itself), but who cannot see things from the perspective of others (not just mine), and who won't properly listen to what I have to say, that it's not worth any further attempts at discussion. That's what's happened here. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "OK, that's twice you've told me that I'm incompetent. Thank you." ... Um, wow........ Demokra (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Quarter-/semi-finals
There are some interesting anomalies in the 2015_Cricket_World_Cup, which I've found it hard to get information about. I don't mean the Wikipedia article itself, but finding out about the actual matches. I think it'd help to discuss it here, as it doesn't fit into an edit description.

First, here's a quick overview:


 * If one or both host countries qualify for the quarter-finals, Australia will play in the game on 20 March in Adelaide, and New Zealand will play on 21 March in Wellington. The teams participating in quarter-finals 1 and 2 are therefore also subject to change, if Australia or New Zealand finish 1st or 2nd in Pool A.


 * If Australia qualifies for a semi-final, that game will be played on 26 March in Sydney. If New Zealand qualifies, its semi-final will be played on 24 March in Auckland. In the event of Australia and New Zealand playing against each other, the team that finished higher in Pool A will have home advantage for the match.

So, it's fairly clear what'll happen for Australia and New Zealand's matches if those teams go to the quarter or semi finals (the info can be found here & here by the way).

But there are still some points not fully explained yet:


 * As far as I can tell, it's misleading to talk about a "change of venue" or "change of date" – surely the knockout matches will be played at those venues on those days? It'd be hard logistically to change those. It's just the teams that might change.


 * Let's say Australia qualified in 1st place in Pool A. Would the rearranged Australia quarter-final in Adelaide simply swap, with the "A3 v B2" quarter-final being played at Sydney?


 * There's no chance of an Australia v New Zealand quarter-final, as Pool A teams will be kept apart in that round.


 * The ICC acknowledges the possibility of an Australia v New Zealand semi-final. Therefore, is it possible that the numbering of the quarter-finals will be in a different nominal order? Otherwise, Australia (supposedly "quarter-final 3") couldn't play against NZ ("quarter-final 4" in Wellington) in a semi-final. Could Australia officially play in "quarter-final 1" even though it was played third? (in Adelaide)

Don't you just love minor details... Demokra (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015
All About ICC World Cup 2015 - http://www.iccworldcup2015updates.com/2015/01/icc-world-cup-2015.html

Adarshpatro (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  17:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Associates Warm Up Tours
Would the tours undertaken by Associate countries to Australia and New Zealand between September 2014 - November 2014 not count towards WC warm up games? If so can a page about them be created?


 * No, they probably have their own pages. In the same way that the England/Australia/India Tri-series at the moment isn't a warm-up match. Also, the warm-up matches are weird, they allow 15 players to play not 11 (so aren't officially ODIs), the matches you mention were proper ODIs with 11 player teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Rights in Sri Lanka
Can someone please update the broadcasting rights section? The Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation is now holding the rights to air the CWC terrestrially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.2.87 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

❌ Please provide a reliable source for this information. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015
Hi there,

I have noticed that when you click on some of the scorecards under the tab pool A, it gives you the wrong teams.

For example, New Zealand vs Afghanistan is coming up as Australia vs Sri Lanka. Please can you change this to New Zealand vs Afghanistan. Another one is when you click on the scorecard for Australia vs Sri Lanka, it is giving you Bangladesh vs England. Please can you change this to Australia vs Sri Lanka.

Thanks

197.87.79.112 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: In order for someone to make this change you will need to provide links to the proper destinations (or the match/scorecard number). Thank you. —   16:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I found and corrected the links. Next time please can you provide links/citations with your requests. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggest putting in a short section on "Trans-Tasman Visa Arrangements" in the Preparations section
Hey, so since the article is locked, as an anon I can't edit it, but I was thinking that there should be a short section on the intended Trans-Tasman Visa Arrangements based on the information that can be found at the following sources: http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migrant/stream/visit/visitors/transtasmanvisaarrangementscricketworldcup2015.htm, http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/mc/2014/mc217579.htm, http://www.immi.gov.au/News/Pages/Trans-Tasman-Visa.aspx, http://www.immi.gov.au/event/wcc/Pages/eligible-visas-for-cricket-world-cup.aspx.....

In essence the arrangement is for New Zealand immigration authorities to recognize Australian visas for the period of time around the World Cup. This is a much simpler solution than the joint visa that was being proposed by some stakeholders (e.g. http://www.tianz.org.nz/content/library/TTF_TIA_Policy_Proposal_Cricket_visas_FINAL.PDF). 72.27.138.114 (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this would be a good idea, as long as it's not too long (no more than 3-4 lines). Would probably put it in the Preparations section under a subheading of something like "Visas" or "Dual-Visas". Joseph2302 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I did this a week or so ago. Thank you for your contribution. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Order of teams in Pools A/B prior to start seems ... odd
Can't work out how current team orders were decided. After start of matches, points scored will determine ranking in pool, but surely atm team order should be based on alphabetical order, official ICC ODI rankings, last world cup rankings or some other objective measure?

As they currently stand, the pools are listed as follows (latest ICC rankings in parentheses after each team): Pool A: England (5), Australia (1), Sri Lanka (4), Bangladesh (9), New Zealand (6), Afghanistan (11), Scotland (13) Pool B: South Africa (3), India (2), Pakistan (7), West Indies (8), Zimbabwe (10), Ireland (12), United Arab Emirates (14)

Alternate #1 (Current ICC ODI Ranking order): Pool A: Australia, Sri Lanka, England, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Scotland Pool B: India, South Africa, Pakistan, West Indies, Zimbabwe, Ireland, United Arab Emirates

Alternate #2 (Alphabetical order): Pool A: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, England, New Zealand, Scotland, Sri Lanka Pool B: India, Ireland, Pakistan, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, West Indies, Zimbabwe

Xpi6oid (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The order is the ranking of the teams on 31 December 2012 (as in the table in Qualification Table), which was used to decide the groups for the World Cup. According to Tiebreaker Criteria, it is technically correct, since the 7th tiebreaker is original team ranking, and none of the first 6 tiebreakers can be applied.
 * In reality, I don't think it's a real issue, as they'll change in 2-3 days anyway. So, I would say keep as it is. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Broadcaster in Europe (Except UK & Ireland)
Could someone please remove Eurosport/Eurosport2 from boradcaster list for Europe. They are not broadcasting it in Europe. An E-mail asking them if they have the rights went unanswered. Also there is no official document available in public domain which provides any information about the broadcaster in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.171.59 (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

❌ Please provide a reliable source stating that Eurosport are not broadcasting. and both cite Eurosport 2 as broadcasting some matches. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Joseph, please see the most reliable source possible, (which I have already referred to) i.e. Eurosport's own broadcast schedule!!! You can check the events being covered in the monthly overview (Monat in German means month). There is no mention of any Cricket or ICC event for all the events available. The two sources you have mentioned are not official, and have no reliable source mentioned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.171.59 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

✅ On further inspection, there doesn't actually seem to be a contract with Eurosport. And your source does clearly not display cricket, so I'm going to change it from Eurosport. Sorry for the confusion, I had problems reading your source, because the website redirected me to British Eurosport, which didn't help. Thank you for contributing. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2015
Eurosport is not broadcasting any matches of the Cricket world cup 2015. See Eurosport's own broadcast schedule!!! You can check the events being covered in the monthly overview (Monat in German means month). There is no mention of any Cricket or ICC event for all the events available. The websites claiming that Eurosport will broadcast in Europe (except UK & Ireland) are neither official, nor cite any official source. The name of Eurosport has popped up perhaps because the broadcasted the last T20 world cup. There is no known broadcaster for European mainland. Intensive web searches have yielded no definitive answer, just the speculations of Eurosport being the broadcaster, but as seen from the evidence referred above, they are not.

Please replace Eurosport and Eurosport2 with unknown in the broadcasters list.

134.130.171.59 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

✅ On further inspection, there doesn't actually seem to be a contract with Eurosport. And your source does clearly not display cricket, so I'm going to change it from Eurosport. Sorry for the confusion, I had problems reading your source, because the website redirected me to British Eurosport, which didn't help. Thank you for contributing. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Davey 2010 Talk 23:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Need a consensus on attendances
After some reversions about whether or not to add attendances, I've decided to create this section to try to achieve consensus on the issue. The argument is: Should attendances should be added to the page, if there is a reliable source quoting the attendance? My personal opinion is yes, since they add information about the topic. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't something that can be decided on one page alone, we need to stimulate the discussion at WT:CRIC. – PeeJay 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I still cant see the problem behind, see all the articles including Big Bash League, Ashes etc. Come on, there's no problem in making an article more informative. Why does it even matter to people whether attendance figures are included or not? It just depends whether they are properly sourced or not. Atleast 15 friends asked me about the India vs Australia warm-up attendance. When I told them to visit Wikipedia, they said that it does not have that information, really surprising when all other major cricket sites including Cricinfo have it. Karyasuman (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2015 (IST)

''' This discussion has been moved to WT:CRIC, with the above text already copied there. Please discuss this issue there.'''


 * When we are going to discuss this issue in WT:CRIC, we are seeing that the discussion there has already been archived within only a few hours of the discussion started! So how can we have our say on it? And where?? (BTW my say is Strong YES) Itz arka (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There's already a discussion on there, 8 sections up. They archived mine because it was a duplicate discussion (which I didn't realise when I started it). So there's still an ongoing discussion on there. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Joseph2302 In fact that previous discussion was started by me a month ago. It's still going on. I would rather request you to go there and have your opinion there. Because till now, only one person has strongly opposed it and two others are saying that it is not required because it is not notable. But I have given some reliable media link there to prove that there are much hype going on about the attendances in media, so that makes it notable as per WP:GNG. So attendances should be added. I would rather request you to go there and share your opinion there, otherwise a consensus might be reached without many of the users saying nothing on it. Itz arka (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Match officials
Request to create an article section to list the match officials. The names of the officials are available at http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2014/media-releases/83319/icc-announces-match-officials-for-icc-cricket-world-cup-2015 Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.61.85 (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As per 2011 Umpires, I'm going to add a small section about the umpires, and then create a main article about it, in the style of 2011 Cricket World Cup officials. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Added the section on 2015 Cricket World Cup article, in the process of creating the main article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC) ✅ Thank you for noticing the gap in information. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015
Web streaming in Europe (except UK & Ireland) is available on Starsports.com Source:  You can click on Know More for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 Web Only Pass, there the territories where stream is available are listed under section Territories.

The Territories listed are: Åland Islands, Albania, American Samoa, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, China, Cook Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Fiji, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Georgia, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Guam, Guernsey, Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, Isle of Man, Italy, Jersey, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Norway, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tokelau, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna Islands

Starsports FAQs: Starsports Live Pro FAQs:

Please add starsports.com ' to the web streaming column in broadcasters list for Europe (Except UK & Ireland), China, Fiji (existing rows in the table).

With this list it seems that most other territories which aren't listed already will have web streaming via starsports.com. Maybe you can also add another row as Others and put the link there as well for web streaming.

134.130.171.59 (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I added Star Sports for Europe (except UK & Ireland), China and Fiji. I wasn't sure where to put all the other countries, someone else feel free to add them. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015
in pakistan championship 1992 link is not available. its link is below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Cricket_World_Cup

Ahmadasjad (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Ahmad Asjad

✅ Fixed, thank you for noticing. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Participants map
Couple of slight issues with the map;
 * Germany appears as sea.
 * Wales isn't shaded in; they should be dark green. Same as Ireland covers Northern Ireland as well, England (in this case) includes Wales; it's the England & Wales Cricket Board... - Cheers, Burwellian (Talk) 03:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of the above, but have no idea how to change it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2015
Ghimire111 (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

❌ No request specified. Please state your request in the form "change X to Y" or "add Z between P and Q", and provide a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Quarter finals
The Quarter Finals section mistakenly has A1 v B4 for 18 March. In fact if Sri Lanka qualifies they will be allocated this match date and venue whether or not they finish as A1. Similar qualifications apply for the other 3 dates. I will change the page according the ICC rules. Alan Davidson (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

End of Australia/England Game
So, I was thinking of adding an extra bullet point to the Australia/England game notes, about how the last wicket was incorrect. I believe it's notable since it's rare that the ICC admits umpires made a mistake, or need to clarify laws, as happened here. Source: ICC admits umpiring error I believe that stating the facts behind it would also be NPOV. My questions therefore are: (1). Do people agree it's a notable enough event? (2). Would adding this be considered NPOV? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so. We generally include debuts, etc. in the bullet points, and this seems to have as much significance as those. In fact, we included the hat trick, even though "it was a hat-trick of about as much relevance as the one Shane Warne's son Jackson took in school cricket last week." ICC making a statement about an umpire's mistake is, as the article says, an unusual step. StAnselm (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hopefully more prose can be added here (compare with the 2011 article).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Point table template
Can anyone help me out about how to edit the point table templates of both Pool A and Pool B? Itz arka (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can edit here : Template:2015 Cricket World Cup Group A and Template:2015 Cricket World Cup Group B.--Vin09 (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks man :) Itz arka (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Match reports
Anyone fancy writing up brief match reports for each group game as they finish? I've started one for West Indies vs Ireland to get things going. The 2011 group articles had the same format, albeit they did tale off after the first half of the tournament! Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't want to be difficult, but isn't this WP:OR? For instance, saying that WI were "reduced" to such-and-such a score.  It's not that I don't agree (and as an Ireland cricket fan, I'm overjoyed by the result), but I'd hate for you to put in heaps of work only to be reverted.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC).
 * It's not OR if it's written objectively and sourced properly. – PeeJay 13:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was building on existing summaries in articles (example). Maybe "reduced" isn't the best choice of words, but feel free to edit and change it. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Centuries
you can add it on List_of_Cricket_World_Cup_centuries page.--Vin09 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am adding the link of List_of_Cricket_World_Cup_centuries to See Also section of this page for convenience. Kashish Arora (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Qualification Map
Is it just my browser (or my eyes) playing tricks, or is there a large lake where Germany should be on the map of qualifying countries? Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC).


 * Yes, I see it too. Both home (Firefox) and work (IE).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed, in a sense, although someone with knowledge of how to make SVG maps should ideally convert it from a PNG to an SVG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Change in Points table templates
The templates under 'Pool A' and 'Pool B' section can be improved by highlighting or by formatting in bold, the first four teams that will qualify for the Knockout stage, leaving three teams below. This will improve the quality of the template and make it more efficient for readers. I don't know how to edit/whether I can edit a template, so it is a request, if anyone can change it, please consider this request. Kashish Arora (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Colours/bolding should only be added once qualification is confirmed. Otherwise it would appear as though qualification has been achieved prematurely. – PeeJay 13:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, giving a bold would be inconvenient or whatever we say, but highlighting is better, as many reliable websites show first four as highlighted rows. Inform me if an example is needed. Kashish Arora (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As PeeJay2K3 said, colours only, if advancing/eliminating is confirmed, as in every other case in en.WP.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015
Can I add attendance of various matches in the 'Group Stage' section of the page? I see that no one has entered the attendance in these section, that would be quite interesting as well as informative if we get those stats on the board.

DanielWarne (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This topic is under extensive discussion at WT:CRIC. I would advise against adding attendances at all until the discussion is decided one way or another. – PeeJay 15:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning the attendances
Like the football articles and many cricket articles like Big Bash League and some others, I think we should mention the attendance of every match in the small scorecard of every match at the region below the venue as it is mentioned in Wikipedia. Itz arka (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea IF there are reliable sources for the attendance. If not, then we can't add them. For instance, on Carlton Mid Triangular Series in Australia in 2014–15, people keep adding attendance figures with no citations, and there doesn't seem to be any source online citing the attendance figures. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And of course, by "people", you mean the person who originated this thread. And I think, because attendances are not traditionally recorded by cricket sources, we shouldn't include them either. – PeeJay 15:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW: NZL-SL 17,228 ; AUS-ENG 84,336 ; SAF-ZIM ???; IND-PAK 41,587  ; SCO-NZL 4,684 ; BAN-AFG 10,972 ; WI-IRE approx 6,500 ; UAE-ZIM 2,643 (tbc)Jen galbraith (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Attenance for various matches can be found including second semifinal which was 42,330 at austadium.com. .Organisers added that 1,016,421 people attended the matches at the six-week World Cup

Opening Ceremony
The opening ceremonies today both in Australia and New Zealand are making some murmuring in the media and among the fans. Should we mention briefly about it and which artists performed there in the main article with a sub-heading Opening Ceremony? It is also being streamed live both on TV and online. Itz arka (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As per 2011 Opening ceremony, I think we should add a couple of lines about it to the main article, and create a new article about it, in the style of 2011 Cricket World Cup opening ceremony. I'm working on the Umpires bit at the moment, so would you, or someone else, be able to do it, please? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ohh thanks a lot Joseph2302. That's a good idea. Will start gathering information on it in the weekend when I'm free and make a new full article on it for sure :) Itz arka (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302, I have created the 2015 Cricket World Cup opening ceremony article. But I don't have the full knowledge about the part of it which took place in Melbourne. So the article presently kind of looks like a stub. Can you please attach the template on the article to ask viewers to help develop it by contributing more? If it is really a stub, then please also attach the stub template.  Arka   92  11:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Rest of it looks good. I added tags saying "This article is under construction, please help in its expansion", and that the relevant section was empty. I assume this was what you wanted? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly what I wanted. Thanks a lot :)  Arka   92  14:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding Notes to the Matches
When adding notes to matches (i.e. things like "This was the West Indies' biggest margin of victory over Pakistan by runs in an ODI."), please add citations! I've had to add citations for quite a few of these notes, and without citations, these notes are original research. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Fairly easy to source all this, ESPN has extensive stats for each match, so the WP:BURDEN should be with whoever posts each fact to add a cite!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, please can people add as much source information as possible, as per WP:LR. Adding just the URL is bad practice, since it is prone to link rot. I tend to add URL, title, publisher, date (if specified) and access date. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the bare minimum you should be adding. I also add the author's name (using the 'first' and 'last' parameters) if it is specified in the cited article. – PeeJay 12:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wickets before runs
This tournament is being played largely in Australia, where the custom is to put wickets before runs when displaying a team's total score. It has previously been agreed that for matches played in Australia, that same custom should be respected. I see the logic that since it's a global tournament we should go for the predominant style used globally, but that is not what was agreed at WT:CRIC. – PeeJay 11:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi PeeJay. Interesting. Can you link to the CRIC discussion or guideline? --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here. – PeeJay 12:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen a discussion about it, and the consensus was wicket/runs (e.g. 3/300) in matches in Australia. I've asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket if someone could link it to me, because I can't find it myself at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WT:Cric says that "Team score format: Adopt the consensus style of writing in the host country of the tournament, i.e. 1/141 or one for 141 for matches in Australia, and 141/1 or 141 for one for most other countries. Use slashes when shortening scores." As the tournament is being held in Australia and New Zealand, it's unclear on which style should be used, as NZ use 140/1 and AUS use 1/140. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's go for the international format then (141/1), since it's more familiar to people from each cricket-playing country. AFAIK, Australia is the only one that uses the 1/141 format anyway. – PeeJay 12:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, I've added a comment at the top of the page, so hopefully people will abide by it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Good spot, User:Joseph2302. The NZ co-hosting is being massively overlooked. I think this is a good resolution. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the custom mentioned here is being followed. I am in USA and watching matches live stream by ESPN. The score on all matches, including ones played in Australia, show score run followed by wicket (e.g. 32-1). -(User:anitj1)
 * Don't worry, it's all good. We sorted the issue at WT:CRIC. – PeeJay 18:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Records Section
Khudiram Baitharu has added a records section to the article. In my opinion, it's unnecessary, since the information is with the relevant matches anyway, so it's duplicating information. Also, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK says that it shouldn't be done IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Record Section in ICC Cricket World Cup 2015
Hello

Chris Gayle of West Indies have scored a double century against zimbabwe, this in "Most Runs" section, 2 100's should be shown against his name.

Regards, Umair Khalid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.226.239 (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Umair. That's not how double-centuries are typically recorded in cricket statistics. The 100s column simply records the number of innings where the player scored 100 or more runs. By your logic, we would have to give him four 50s, when in fact the 50s column only records the number of innings where the player scored between 50 and 99 runs (inclusive). – PeeJay 11:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Match Times
The matches in the article all include a start time. Yet, no indication is made in which time zone they are indicated. Are they in UTC, or are they in local time (which would be different for matches played in e.g. Perth, Adelaide, Sydney and Wellington). Bearing in mind that this tournament is spread over  four five different time zones, shouldn't we indicate the time zones used in the match lists? Tvx1 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice eye! I totally skipped over the timings. Well, the timings mentioned are mostly 14:00 (2:00 PM) in Local time of Australia and New Zealand, where the match is being played. Proper timings are mentioned here according to Indian Standard Time (IST) first and then GMT. If any help is needed, this page can be referred. Kashish Arora (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When I did the splitting of articles (see below, all the times got moved to 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A/2015 Cricket World Cup Pool B articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that 2015 Cricket World Cup Group A and 2015 Cricket World Cup Group B be merged into 2015 Cricket World Cup. There is very little additional detail in the Group A and Group B articles, and there is some additional detail in this article that cannot be found in the Group A and Group B articles. For example, for the 14 February game between Australia and England, information about the final dismissal is found in this article, and not in the Group A article.

In the unlikely event that substantial additional detail is written about matches (in the Group A and Group B articles), I do not see a need for this to be in a separate article to this one. Gfcvoice (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They were created based on other world cup pages.--Vin09 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation Vin09. However you have not addressed my concerns above. Gfcvoice (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They just need expanding, that's all. They're supposed to be there for proper match reports to be written about each match, but that's currently not happening. If it doesn't happen soon, you'll have my support for merging. – PeeJay 07:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Per PeeJay. I started one or two off, hoping that would get the ball running. Plenty of things to report, but no-one is padding them out. Support merge if nothing has changed in the next 7 days.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If nothing new or different data are available there than those in the main article, then I don't really find a suitable reason for the existence of those separate articles. So if the data are the same, then merge, but if users can add anything extra which can't be stated in detail in the main article, then may not merge.  Arka   92  07:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * IMO, the group stage pages are worse than the main article, since all the notes have been added without citations there (whereas they save citations here). Unless someone does a proper write-up of the game with appropriate sourcing, then I would support merging them.


 * Support The data whatever to be added, can be added in the main article. No need of separate article.  PK talk 16:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes the page should be merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmay Tarun (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the main article should be trimmed by keeping only the league table and pages for each group should have the match by match details. Main article is too lengthy now, - hari 12:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbkrishnan (talk • contribs)


 * I agree with Hbkrishnan, only the key info should be in the main page, as in 2011 Cricket World Cup. I suggest something similar to the format below (which is similar to 2011) for the main page, with everything else being added to the Pool A/Pool B page. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that all the notes etc. are notable, but there's too many of them for each match, and so they're taking up too much space on the main article. So I would like to keep Pool A/B articles and add all the notes (+a brief summary of each game maybe) to that page instead. This seems to be how it is done with other sports too, e.g. 2014 FIFA World Cup, 2011 Rugby World Cup. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, agreed. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable suggestion to me. – PeeJay 11:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Same, keep the sub articles. Bogger (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So now it's a reverse merge?! Anyone going to be bold and split it out?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll do it some point today, am working on a different article at the moment. Also, I'll probably wait until the current match has been fully updated, to avoid edit conflicts. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

✅ I have split the main article as suggested. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As it stands now, I think they should not be merged as Joseph2302 has done a very good job to separate the notable points in the separate articles. Good job. Can you remove the template for the merger proposal from the top the respective articles?  Arka   92  13:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm removed the mergal proposal template, and am closing this discussion (seeing as there haven't been any objections to my edits, only support). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice work Joseph2302! Keep an eye on these pages now, as they may need page protection.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Have New Zealand actually Qualified?
I cannot find a source saying NZ have qualified for the quarter-finals, yet the tenplate table says they've qualified. I know there's some confusing Maths about it, but I don't think it's guaranteed is it? BBC Sport says they still need 1 win from their remaining 2 games. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1 win is obviously wrong because 1 point will do which means a no result is enough. Then the remaining games in which other teams take away the points from each other is the key for NZ's qualification. That are espec. England's games. England have to win all their matches to overtake NZ, but that means Ban loses one, so they can not overtake NZ. It's the same with Afghanistan, which play England and Australia. It's impossible that England and Bangladesh OR that Afghanistan and Australia overtake New Zealand. So, New Zealand is qualified.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a reference at well, to add to Pool A page. Clearly people on here are just more intelligent than the BBC. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sri Lanka has not Qualified (yet).
I will reverse the Sri Lanka entries that shows it qualifying at this stage. Only when it is mathematically certain should the entry be made. Here is one possibility. Sri Lanka loses to both Australia and Scotland. Australia beats Afghanistan. Bangladesh beats Scotland and New Zealand; and England wins its last 2 games. The table would be: NZ at least 8; Australia and Bangladesh on 7, and Sri Lanka and England on 6, so one of those last two would be out on the NRR. Please do not make a change until it is certain. Alan Davidson (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I made the change to the points table. Gfcvoice (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "...and England wins its last 2 games..." Haha, oh my sides!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We're talking math. possibilities, not personal opinions.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * England isn't even a factor here. If 3 teams overtake Sri Lanka, that is enough.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed - that is just one possibility, there are others. Alan Davidson (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Do the Knockout Stages need a separate article?
Shagadelicbasil23 asked about this on my talkpage.

As we moved content to the Pool A and Pool B pages to avoid making this article too long, should we also have a separate article for the Knockout stages Knockout Stage, for the same reason? I think Yes: 2011 Cricket World Cup had it, and people are probably going to have more notes/longer game summaries for these matches. So this would once again avoid the problem of this article becoming too long. It's only 7 matches, but that will still be about 50 fewer lines of writing on the main page. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there needs to be an article on the knockout stage, but I must insist that it be called 2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage, rather than 2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stages, since it is one stage made up of three rounds, not multiple stages. – PeeJay 00:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Yes for a separate article for the knockout stages for the same reasons as Joseph2302. Gfcvoice (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - 2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage was created in July 2014 and redirected to this article (2015 Cricket World Cup) in August 2014. Gfcvoice (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the seperate page for 2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage. Shagadelicbasil23

I recreated 2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage from the version that existed in July/August 2014. Gfcvoice (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Pool B Knockout not Highlighted Red
Hi, Pool B Knockout UAE is not highlighted Red. Please do so. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.159.186.142 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think UAE can still qualify. The case they can do it is if UAE win both their remaining games, Pakistan lose to SA, Ireland lose to Zimbabwe and India, and the Ireland/Pakistan game isn't a tie/no result. In this case, UAE could still qualify 4th, behind India, South Africa and the winner of Ireland/Pakistan. Therefore, I believe that they're not necessarily out, although it's incredibly unlikely they'll qualify for Quarter finals. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I cannot find a source saying they're definitely out. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

But if we're comparing UAE with Scotland (which has 0 points and slightly higher NRR than UAE). Taking into account just the statistical/mathematical calculations and not personal opinions, Either Scotland should not be highlighted red or UAE should be done the same. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.159.186.142 (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if Scotland win both their remaining games, they only get 4 points, so cannot qualify as the current fourth place team in Group A has 5 points. Whereas if UAE win both their remaining games, they get 4 points, and in the situation mentioned above, they can still qualify, as the current fourth place team in Group B has 4 points. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Scotland is eliminated and UAE still has a math. chance, so everything is o.k. with the colouring right now.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw that's so, BECAUSE we take math. calculations and NOT personal opinions into account.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As a general comment, it's appropriate to remind 119.159.186.14 that Wikipedia is not a news service. The points tables don't need to be shaded green or red two seconds after a team has won/lost a game - especially in the case of UAE, given they can still make the quarter-finals. Gfcvoice (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015
the knock out stage part is wrong

213.174.197.6 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

✅ Thank you for noticing. For some reason, people keep adding India, when their quarter final date isn't confirmed yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

India & Knockout Stages
India's quarter final date and location has not yet been decided. It depends on where they finish in their group (they haven't definitely won Pool B) AND where England/Sri Lanka/Bangladesh/Australia finish in Pool A. Please can people stop added India on 19 March, as it's definitely not confirmed that they're playing that date. Also, Australia aren't definitely 2nd place in Pool A, so won't definitely be playing B3 (as has also been incorrectly added). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015
Just noticed the stats on section "Statistics", for both "most runs" and "most wickets" are not 100 % accurate (according to Cricinfo reference). As there are a number of mistakes, the table for "most runs" should read:


 * style="text-align:left"|Kumar Sangakkara
 * style="text-align:left"| undefined
 * 5||5||372||124.00||116.25||117*||3||0||41||3
 * style="text-align:left"|AB de Villiers
 * style="text-align:left"| undefined
 * 5||5||318||79.50||153.62||162*||1||1||29||16
 * style="text-align:left"|Hashim Amla
 * style="text-align:left"| undefined
 * 5||5||295||59.00||99.32||159||1||1||29||5
 * style="text-align:left"|Brendan Taylor
 * style="text-align:left"| undefined
 * 5||5||295||59.00||100.00||121||1||1||28||7
 * style="text-align:left"|Tillakaratne Dilshan
 * style="text-align:left"| undefined
 * 5||5||291||72.75||96.03||161*||1||1||36||2
 * 5||5||295||59.00||100.00||121||1||1||28||7
 * style="text-align:left"|Tillakaratne Dilshan
 * style="text-align:left"| undefined
 * 5||5||291||72.75||96.03||161*||1||1||36||2
 * 5||5||291||72.75||96.03||161*||1||1||36||2

And the table for "most wickets" should read:
 * style="text-align:left"|Trent Boult
 * style="text-align:left"|🇳🇿 new zealand
 * 5||5||13||13.69||3.86||5/27||21.20
 * style="text-align:left"|Tim Southee
 * style="text-align:left"|🇳🇿 new zealand
 * 5||5||13||16.84||4.76||7/33||21.20
 * style="text-align:left"|Mitchell Starc
 * style="text-align:left"|🇦🇺 australia
 * 4||4||12||10.16||3.77||6/28||16.10
 * style="text-align:left"|Daniel Vettori
 * style="text-align:left"|🇳🇿 new zealand
 * 5||5||12||11.33||3.00||4/18||22.60
 * style="text-align:left"|Morné Morkel
 * style="text-align:left"| undefined
 * 5||5||11||17.27||4.50||3/34||23.00
 * 5||5||12||11.33||3.00||4/18||22.60
 * style="text-align:left"|Morné Morkel
 * style="text-align:left"| undefined
 * 5||5||11||17.27||4.50||3/34||23.00
 * 5||5||11||17.27||4.50||3/34||23.00

94.210.161.20 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015
The section "Knockout stage", subsection "Quarter-finals", shows:

Sri Lanka v B2 A4 v India

But as far as mathematics is concerned: 1. Sri Lanka is not yet qualified (let alone qualified as A3). 2. Although qualified, India has not yet secured B1 spot.

Thanks

94.210.161.20 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding this incorrect information. You are correct that SL have not necessarily qualified, and India haven't finished top necessarily. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of Super Over
Hello! In the event of a tie in the quarterfinals or semifinals, will a Super Over be used? On the wiki page on the quarterfinals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Cricket_World_Cup_knockout_stage) it says that the super-over will be used, but on the wiki page on Super Overs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Over) it says Super-Over will only be used WC2015 in case the final is tied. These two pieces of information are not compatible. UrDreamViola (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I'm not sure which one is correct. The sources listed in this page suggest Super Over is for the final only, I'm adding a citation needed to the KO stages page. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See, points 21.10.2, 21.10.3 and 21.10.4. Super Over is only used in the final, In QF and SF the better team in the group stage advances.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've changed it on 2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Some sources to resolve edit wars regarding quarter-finals
ICC World Cup fixtures http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/fixtures

http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/news/2015/media-releases/86718/bangladesh-and-sri-lanka-qualify-for-icc-cricket-world-cup-2015-quarter-finals

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/current/story/822205.html

Gfcvoice (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've also added comments saying "Not yet decided" in the places were teams are being incorrectly added. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015
Mokrish eee (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

❌ No request specified. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Knockout stage of Pool A is not Confirm
From Pool A these four teams were qualified to the Knockout. they are NZ, AUS, BAN, SL. but SL and BAN not confirm their Venus and Date of the Matches.

Some of People Added SL and BAN in Quarter finals, but their position may change according to their next match result.

Only NZ and AUS confirm their Venus and Date of the Matches.

Please dont add them to Quarter finals

SRiNu (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the official schedule and rules. The QF dates of SL and BAN are set, regardless of their placing in the group.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you read the sources, Australia, New Zealand, England and Sri Lanka had dates fixed for quarter-finals. As Bangladesh are replacing England, they get that date. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the four Pool A teams are set. However, it is still too early to enter the Pool B opponents. We can guess how the table is likely to finish, but such guesses are often wrong (a likely guess 24 hours ago would have included England in the top 4 of Pool A). So I request editors to please stop adding the Pool B teams until there is certainty. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Australia into quarters?
Don't Bangladesh still have a chance of finishing ahead of Australia? Also, is the table not editable? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Bangladesh have a chance, but it doesn't stop Australia from qualifying, which they've done already.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Australia only needs to finish in the top 4. The bottom 3 cannot pass Australia.  Whether Australia will be placed 2nd, 3rd or 4th in the group is not known.  The table can be edited from the Template page. Alan Davidson (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which 'table' is not editable?--Kashish Arora (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2015
In the section dealing with the quarter-final pairings there is a sentence which reads: If England would have advanced, they would have played in this...  This would read a lot better if it was: If England had advanced, they would have played in this...

164.126.126.128 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense, thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2015
Please find the following changes under Knockout stage section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaymht02 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

18 March (D/N) Sri Lanka v Please change blank to B3 1st Quarter-final Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney 19 March (D/N) Bangladesh v Please change blank to B1 2nd Quarter-final Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne 20 March (D/N) Australia v Please change blank to B2 3rd Quarter-final Adelaide Oval, Adelaide 21 March (D/N) New Zealand v B4 4th Quarter-final Wellington Regional Stadium, Wellington

24 March (D/N) Please change blank to QF1 v Please change blank to QF3 1st Semi-final Eden Park, Auckland 26 March (D/N) Please change blank to QF2 v Please change blank to QF4 2nd Semi-final Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney

The purpose of this request is to show that how the matches will be going on further and if you don't feel to edit this request than go further on the basis of match results.

Vijaymht02 (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

❌: The places of Sri Lanka, Australia and Bangladesh are not yet decided. They may change according to the results of the remaining group stage matches. Their matches are decided where they will play but unless their positions are confirmed, no one knows whether Bangladesh will play with B1 or B2 or Sri Lanka will play with B3 or B2.--Kashish Arora (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Then how B4 is fixed.ok I got it. Please add the result of today's match: South Africa 341/6 (50 Overs) Vs United Arab Emirates 195 (47.3 Overs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaymht02 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

See also in the group articles
Do we need a see also section with links to the other group when we have the Template:2015 Cricket World Cup at the bottom of each sub-article to navigate?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This question is vague, so I will explain it from your talk page. The two articles, 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A and 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A are quite a lot related to each other. We would like to direct the readers to see the other article too. So, there should be see also links in both articles directing to each other. The see also links make it easy and efficient to navigate from one related article to the other. No one even scrolls down the references if you say the template - Template:2015 Cricket World Cup provides the way to navigate. Everyone will just stop scrolling when they see the references have started. So, there should be see also links in both the articles which should connect to each other.--Kashish Arora (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I must say that your argument is highly subjective. Per WP:SEEALSO, we should not add links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes to the "See also" section. Please understand the our policies and guidelines before proposing any change based on your personal feelings. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 17:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If no one scrolls down the references, why we have templates down there in so many articles? :) --Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Pool B top two
Are India and South Africa's positions at first and second in Pool B now fixed or can either still be moved down by the results of the remaining pool matches? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * India is fix at 1, South Africa can still math. drop to 3, though it's not very likely the winner of Ire-Pak ends up with a higher NRR than SA.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes I can now see how that possibility (however slim) does exist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Several teams in the Knockout stage have been put in positions that they are not guaranteed. Australia are down as A2 (they could lose their final game and not be), Sri lanka as A3 (they could be anything between A2 and A4), Bangladesh are down as A4 (could win and pass Sri lanka), and South africa are down as B2 (not sure how NRR works, but surely at least one of the teams on 6 points could pass them in theory) 213.104.176.176 (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In fact if the Australia v Scotland match is NR (quite possible as showers are predicted), then Sri Lanka will remain above Australia. All teams should be removed from the knockout bracket except for New Zealand and India, who are each guaranteed top spot. No other spots have been confirmed.An Interested Bystander (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Is Bangladesh now confirmed in the A4 spot, having just lost to New Zealand? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In theory Australia could still finish 4th if they lost badly enough to Scotland.An Interested Bystander (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Crystal ball edits to Knockout stage section
As a general comment, it's appropriate to remind editors that Wikipedia is not a news service. The points tables, the knockout stage diagram and the quarter-final scheduling don't need to be updated two seconds after a team has won/lost a game. The most recent example of this relates to Australia, Bangladesh and India. If Australia loses to Scotland, it can still finish 4th in Pool A, which would mean that Bangladesh would finish 3rd in Pool A. Gfcvoice (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support.--Vin09 (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Pool B's second, third and fourth positions are also not yet determined. If Pakistan score a very big win against Ireland, raising their NRR above South Africa's, Pakistan would end in position B2 and South Africa in B3. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. For fixtures, if it's not on the Official Fixture List, then don't add it. For team positions, don't assume results i.e. don't assume Australia will beat Scotland. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so people know, anyone who I revert/is reverted whilst I'm online is being sent a warning message I constructed. The text is: "Please do not add India to play Bangladesh in the Quarter-finals, it is not certain yet. Bangladesh could still finish 3rd in Pool A, in which they would not play India (it's unlikely, as Scotland would need to beat Australia by a lot, but is still possible). The Official Fixture List clearly doesn't say that India are playing Bangladesh, the reason being that it isn't certain yet. Please do not add India again until after the Australia/Scotland match has taken place." If they continue adding it, then I'll start warning them for introducing deliberate factual errors (deliberate since it's been explained why it's wrong). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Issue with the Knockout Stages
Major issue: Cricinfo says that Bangladesh/India is confirmed. They're wrong of course, for failing to consider that Australia can drop to 4th if they lose to Scotland. But it means people are going to continually add this incorrect information. Should I get the page fully protected, as it's going to be the only way to sort out this mess? Otherwise, people are going to have to revert like every 5 minutes. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fully protection now seems a good choice, I don't see, that this edits end very soon.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At least the BBC writes it more correct than Cricinfo: "Defeat means Bangladesh are likely to finish fourth in Pool A, which would mean a quarter-final against Pool B winners India in Melbourne on Thursday, 19 March."--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Cricinfo now has changed!!!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, so should I withdraw the full protection request then? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For now, I think yes (but we will have this edits anyway :-) ).--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

== Edit in "controversies" section : In the pool B match between India and Pakistan, Umar Akmal was given out caught behind, reversing the on-field decision though there was no sufficient evidence that the not-out decision was wrong.Sibsankar91 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Even if Australia wins it goes to A2 position otherwise it remains in the same position. And the all matches for Bangladesh are finished and its position is now fixed. So in the quarter final Bangladesh will definitely play with India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaymht02 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

All West Indian and Irish eyes are watching Cyclone Pam
In Pool B, West Indies are expected to beat UAE in Napier tomorrow to take fourth spot in the group. The win would give them two points to be level with Ireland but they would have a better NRR. But, effects of Cyclone Pam are expected to hit New Zealand tonight and  heavy rain is likely to  prevent any play tomorrow (accordng to the weather gurus). So West Indies and Ireland would get one point apiece, which isn't enough to promote the Windies up to fourth in group. Moriori (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * West Indies are playing UAE not Ireland, but yes, if they don't win that one, then both Pakistan and Ireland are definitely through. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You somehow missed the first 10 words in my post -- "In Pool B, West Indies are expected to beat UAE....". Moriori (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You also said "West Indies and Ireland would get one point apiece", which isn't true, because if it's rained off, West Indies and UAE would get 1 point. Personally I hope Ireland go through. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Quarter final Fixed Bangladesh vs India
Even if Australia wins it goes to A2 position otherwise it remains in the same position due to its NRR score. All the matches for Bangladesh were finished rather the position of Bangladesh in Pool A and India in Pool B is now fixed. So in the Quarter final Bangladesh will definitely play with team India.

Vijaymht02 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

❌: It's very likely that Bangladesh play India, but mathematically with a high loss by Australia vs. Scotland, Australia can drop behind Bangladesh. Just wait for a day. :) --Anaxagoras13 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

But based on NRR score how it is possible that the NRR Score of Australia will be less than +0.136. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaymht02 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If Australia lose very badly against Scotland their NRR can drop that much. Please just drop this matter, we will have certainty tomorrow, there is no need to hurry. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NOT TRUE - if Australia gets bowled out for 0, and Scotland makes hte runs in 1 ball, Australia finishes with a NRR of 0.31, still higher than Bangladesh's. This is why we follow the reliable sources folks, and don't try to figure these things out ourselves. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What if Scotland bats first? That's why we say wait for certainty!!!! AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @StAnselm The reliable sources Official Fixture List and Scorecard said Ban v TBA before the Aus-Sco match and you were the one who tried to figure these things out yourself.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the reliable sources adjusted their claims. That's why I didn't change it in the article. StAnselm (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok! Can you make the table in statistics section for Top 5 highest runs made in the innings by a particular batsman like in West Indies, Chris Gayle has made 215 vs Zimbabwe in 147 balls and also the table for best 5 highest score made by particular team like 372 by West Indies vs Zimbabwe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaymht02 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the statistics have been added to a separate page, List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics (so that this article doesn't get too long). highest scores section appears to have the 5 highest individual scores already. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2015
At Preparation section in Local organising committee can you able to change this sentence. "In preparation for the 2015 Cricket World Cup, the organising committee of the tournament was finalised. John Harnden was named chief executive, James Strong as chairman,and Ralph Waters was named as the deputy chairman."

For the preparation of 2015 Cricket World Cup, the organizing committee was finalized with John Harnden as chief executive, James Strong as chairman and Ralph Waters as the deputy chairman. Please also add the result of Scotland team 130(25.4 overs).

Vijaymht02 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

❌: Please provide the source! Don't give information without reliable sources. We value this information, but we can't post something which cannot be verified. Post the source and change the answered parameter of the edit semi-protected template to no and this may be answered again.--Kashish Arora (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The West Indies can still miss out on finals if Pakistan and Ireland have a tie or no result
After the West Indies win against the UAE, they have 6 points and a NRR higher than both Pakistan and Ireland. However they are still not be guaranteed a quarter-final yet, because if Pakistan and Ireland tie (or no-result), then those two teams will both finish above West Indies with 7 points each. Gfcvoice (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In relation to the current early edits (crystal ball gazing) - just give it a couple of hours when it becomes official. Alan Davidson (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This is just arrant pedantry of the most ludicrous kind. US Presidential elections have been called by mainstream media at far lower confidence levels.Sujith (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. There will be certainty in a few hours, see WP:NODEADLINE. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Given Ireland's first innings score it is now not possible for either them or Pakistan to pass South Africa's NRR, thus SA is confirmed in B2. The winner of IRL v PAK will end at B3 and B4 will be determined by the NRR difference between the loser and WI. A little more patience and the QF round matchups will be known. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a good point about the presidential election comments by media. There is that famous photo where Truman holds a paper which states "Dewey defeats Truman".  They couldn't wait, and got it wrong.  We must always await the official result or risk looking like fools.  130.102.195.50 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Quarter Final Matches Mostly Fixed
Mostly all positions in Pool A and the position of team India and South Africa are fixed. So in the Quarter final matches Bangladesh vs India and SriLanka vs South Africa are fixed. Please add the above details.

Vijaymht02 (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is still mathematically possible for Pakistan or Ireland to overtake South Africa, and the places of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka won't be confirmed until the Australia vs Scotland match is completed. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And please don't use the word "fixed" in relation to cricket matches... StAnselm (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that why people were so sure of inserting the finalists before the matches were played? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just before we delve off-topic too much, reminder that Wikipedia is not a forum. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Zimbabwe vs Ireland
I don't believe Mooney's catch on the boundary is controversial enough to be mentioned in the controversies section. It is not a clear error as footage was at best inconclusive. The bigger controversy from this incident is the criticism leveled at a Zimbabwe newspaper. Either way I don't beleive it is on the same level as the Taylor/Anderson mixup which was a clear mistake. AIR corn (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally agree, it wasn't a massive controversy, but a bit of an argument, like the DRS arguments/controversies that have previously been added and subsequently removed. None of them area actually very notable IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreement is nice, but your opinions are your opinions. The very close Ireland vs Zimbabwe match eliminated Zimbabwe. That out was a pivotal event in the game. Experts, national news outlets, and now the ICC are part of the mix. That constitutes notoriety. The documentation shows that, at least, some news outlets agree. That's my rationale for the initial restoration. The change of wording made after my restoration reflects your opinion of the event's minimal importance. The use of "near" (replaced by "extremely close") was weasel wording, intentional or otherwise. This may seem "hair-splitting," but "near" doesn't reflect how close Mooney was to the boundary. Since he officially made no contact, the separation would require a calliper set or micrometer to measure--"near" doesn't encompass that. Since you chose to minimize a notable event, I decided to write as comprehensive an account as possible with a few sentences. Regards Tapered (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, now it is well and truly into WP:Undue territory. Would be interested in the link that shows the ICC is part of the mix as that could convince me that this warrants mention and is not just another could have/couldn't have sports moment. AIR corn (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's no more "controversial" than a catch being caught when the hands are on the grass and the third umpire has to judge on if it was clean or not. Mountains vs. molehills.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

add total runs scored by a particular team in the tournament
hi,

kindly add a coloumn in which total runs scored by a particular team.

example-southafrica scored at total of 1878 runs in the 2015 cricket world cup(6 matches) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.237.235 (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: Thank you for your concern, but we can't write just a single team's score. This will come under the statistics whatsoever. Try adding the information in the List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics article, and please provide a reliable source from where the whole list can be retrieved. Only after that this can be done.--Kashish Arora (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Quarter Final Match: India vs Bangladesh
Vijaymht02: Please add the final score of team India (302/6 50 overs).

202.131.115.66 (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done - (But not by me) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

India vs Bangladesh or Bangladesh vs India?
I thought the way we ordered the teams for matches was the home team first, or alphabetically if the match was at a neutral venue? So, Bangladesh should be listed first, am I correct? I listed them first here and at 2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage the other day, but someone has changed it back. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I usually go by what Cricinfo do, but in this case, isn't the team that finished higher in their group listed first (i.e. India v Bangladesh)? – PeeJay 11:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's probably the case here. Although Official Fixture List lists Bangladesh first. Although it does seem fine as it is, if there's a logic behind it. I just hadn't realised the logic. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And I was all set for an RFC that ran longer that the actual tournament, a discussion that had more opinions that Boycott's Twitter page and the long-term blocking of several long term editors. You guys are no fun!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Once the matches actually happen we list them in batting order in the match tables, but in the knockout stage bracket graphic we put the winner above the loser. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we? I always figured the bracket followed the way the teams were drawn in the tournament schedule. – PeeJay 23:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the India-Bangladesh match, originally the QFs matchups were all entered with the group A qualifiers above the group B teams. After India won it was changed to put India above Bangladesh. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Query for Knockout Stage Tabular Format
In Knockout stage section, at semi-finals tabular format, can you please change B2 South Africa to QF1 South Africa and B1 India to QF2 India. As in the Quarter final matches in QF1 the winner is SA and in the QF2 the winner is IND. So by adding this information, it could be seen in significant manner.

Vijaymht02 (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * B1 and B2 is better than QF1 and QF2. There is no significance in QF1 or QF2 in this format.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight on umpires in the Bangladesh - India match?
Please see the comments on 2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage, or as the article stands now regarding the comments about the umpires. Thoughts?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2015
"meaning the batsmen was not out" should read "meaning the batsman was not out"

Slowpoke Rodriguez (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅: Thank you for spotting it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hung issues
The funniest and stupidest moments when you realize that you can not add the record attendances of the ongoing world cup matches and it's knockout stages just because of 3-4 self proclaimed Wikipedia bosses here in WP:CRIC who think those are trivial and as they are among the oldest Wikipedia users, so they will have to do anything to defend and establish their anarchist wills. Sorry to say that but Wikiproject Cricket really lacks.  Arka   92  06:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are you trying to insert attendance figures? I think that is a fairly standard aspect of a match summary, so I would expect it to be included (but had not noticed that it was missing). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why might you expect that, Athomeinkobe? It's typically recorded for football and rugby games (among others), but very rarely for cricket. Plus we don't have any reliable sources for the attendance figures at this World Cup. – PeeJay 09:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We have reliable sources. The Aussie and Kiwi media are recording these figures right from the first match. And no one says that it can't be recorded for cricket matches, but only a few handful of Wikiproject cricket members say. Even they want to exclude it for the world cup too. You remember the long discussion about it which lasted in the talk page of cricket for more than a month? User Jack started the voting and he said that we should wait for one week to see where the conclusion reaches. But when you guys saw that more users are voting in support, you guys waited for over a month and then suddenly archived the whole discussion! Is that according to Wikipedia guidelines? I am afraid no. Even the Bengali Wikipedia is also recording these data. We have no problem with it in our Bengali version of Wikipedia.  Arka   92  10:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources, then why haven't you been adding them? Adding attendances without sources is original research. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Check the history of this 2015 Cricket World Cup article just after the CWC started. I added them with reliable sources, but user Lugnuts kept on reverting them calling them trivial. And he also said to go according to the conclusion of the consensus, but as I have said that the consensus was not done in a fair way.  Arka   92  16:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep up the personal attacks, Arka.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't an unfair consensus and voting system be called anarchist? Actually I didn't call anyone anarchist, but the way the conclusion was drawn unfairly was a bit anarchist. Nothing personal attack about this. But the whole thing wasn't done fairly.  Arka   92  17:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Question
Are all articles relating to this subject protected? Antiv31 discuss 04:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of them got spammed after the India/Bangladesh match and controversy, or have had loads of IP addresses posting fake scores on them. So, most of them had to be semi-protected, unfortunately. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, they must be semi-protected! Bangladeshi fans are on a rage and are protesting wherever they find a place. They should be semi-protected as soon as possible.--Kashish Arora (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You tell me. I'm in Australia and Bangladesh supporters were protesting on the streets in my suburb! Antiv31 discuss 07:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which suburb is this? Strange I didn't see it mentioned in the SMH. Got a source? Tigerman2005 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"Controversies"
I agree that the decision in the Australia - England game was controversial. Was the decision in the in the India - Pakistan game really a controversy? A decision was given, MS Dhoni asked for a review, and the decision was overturned. That's not really controversial. Or is the "controversy" the fact that MS Dhoni used a review system he doesn't support?

In any case, if this entry stays in the article, you should not start a sentence with "But" (which has been done twice). "But" should be used to join two sentences - and the comma after the "but" is redundant. Neb-Maat-Re (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's really notable, IMO it sounds like an anti-DRS person is trying to make an issue out of nothing. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've tided up the MS Dhoni part to remove the POV-pushing.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At first I thought it was saying that the field umpire overuled the thrid umpire's decision, which didn't make sense. But reading the cited reference, I think the "controversy" lies in the third umpire giving him out even though there was a lack of clear evidence that there was definitely an edge. I've edited the passage to reflect that. I haven't seen the incident myself, but if an Indian newspaper says the Pakistani batsman should've been not out, then there must be some validity to the claim that it was a wrong call. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd say the Ireland v Zimbo catch was a bigger controversy than the England LBW/run out. The latter was just an error by the umpiring staff - it had no material effect on the game save for stopping the English guy (Taylor?) getting his century. England wouldn't have won even if they got it right. On the other hand if the "catch" is instead ruled a 6 for Zimbabwe then they possibly win that game. Tigerman2005 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally disagree. I think the ICC admitting to an umpiring mistake is a bigger deal than an argument about inconclusive evidence. Yes, the Ireland vs Zimbabwe one may have had a bigger impact on that match, but the ICC admitting an umpire was wrong and having to clarify a law of the game is a super-rare event. Although it doesn't really matter, since both are noteworthy enough for this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"Broadcasting rights" section needs many more sources
Hopefully this can be fixed before this is posted on the Main Page via WP:ITN. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  13:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So I found an official broadcasters list here, but not all the information is the same. Should we either remove unsourced content not listed here, or replace it if this source has conflicting information? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Replace/remove as necessary. I've added the cite, now to trim the issues.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Every broadcaster on the table now is either covered by this source or their own inline citation. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2015
Crowd Attendance

1,011,402

Harmeet2015 (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not clear what edit you want making.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that's the total attendance for all matches and they want it added somewhere? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So it's not only me who is obsessed about attendances in this world cup! And btw, where there is something about attendance, there is Lugnuts! :D But where to add that total attendance stuff? In the main article infobox? There is already a space about total attendance. But the infobox automatically calculates the average attendance. So it will calculate it with 49 matches, whereas already Aus-Ban match was washed out so it should be calculated with 48 matches.  Arka   92  11:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Pitch Conditions
Anyone got any idea about how the pitch in MCG is gonna be for tomorrow's match? Is it gonna be grassy bouncy or a flat track like those in Adelaide and Sydney?  Arka   92  07:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Like MCG pitch. 110.148.112.245 (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk is not a discussion forum  Flat Out  let's discuss it  12:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I am not opening a discussion. I am asking this because I want to add the pitch and weather info in the CWC15 Final article. Know the topic before drawing any conclusion.  Arka   92  11:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Itz arka asking a question about something that hasn't happened yet as you did above, is using talk for a forum. Please don't do that.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  05:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Venues
Venues section appears to have a table that it duplicating lots of information. Would someone be able to add the number of matches in each venue to the existing locations map graphic/table? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Retirements
Couple of people being wrongly added to the retirements section.

Younis Khan:, and  all say he isn't going to retire. Daniel Vettori: As far as I can see, there's no reliable source saying he's retired, only speculating that he might/probably will retire.

Please don't add either of these people (or anyone else) without a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There are no sources for Nawroz Mangal, Ed Joyce or Kyle Mills either. I'll remove them for now for BLP reasons.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Mills is speculation like Vettori, see here. No idea where the other 2 came from. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Vettori now confirmed. :(  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So I was thinking of expanding this table, and adding the number of ODIs they played in. Do people think this is a good idea?
 * Not me. It's not relevant to this tournament. In fact, I don't think the table should exist in this article at all for that same reason. They retired from ODI cricket immediately after the World Cup, that's fine, but it's not a defining characteristic of the tournament, it's more about the players than the competition. – PeeJay 14:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, so I did adding the ODIs before you posted this. Although the table is about the people, I think it is relevant- they played in the World Cup, then didn't play again, why isn't this notable in this article? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the World Cup didn't cause their retirement, they just chose to retire after they finished playing in it. It's trivial at best. – PeeJay 14:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

How many matches?
There were 49 matches scheduled for the World Cup (42 group stage, 4 quarters, 2 semis, 1 final), but Australia/Bangladesh was washed out without a toss, which doesn't usually count as a match for stats purposes. Therefore, should the number of matches in the infobox be 48 or 49? I still personally think 49, since it was scheduled to happen, and the walkovers at the 2003 Cricket World Cup counted towards the match count. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There were 49 matches. Regardless of whether it was played or not, the match between Australia and Bangladesh still gave both sides a point in the group table. – PeeJay 10:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, what PeeJay said. It counts for the matches in the tournament, but not against individual player stats, etc.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, just wanted record of this discussion, so when it inevitably gets changed, there is evidence that they're wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But not a single ball was bowled in that match, so practically ICC won't consider that even as a valid ODI match. Even if one ball was bowled, it would be considered as an abandoned ODI match by the ICC, but not when nothing happened. Isn't that?  Arka   92  19:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it that you are so often wrong? The match was scheduled, the teams showed up, even a fair few of the crowd passed through the ticket barriers; the match may not have started, but it was still a match and part of the tournament. – PeeJay 19:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay Mr User:PeeJay2K3, have a look at these scorecards of ESPNCricinfo. The Aus-Ban match was supposed to be the 11th match of the CWC15. Now check it chronologically according to Cricinfo. The 9th match ie the Eng-NZ match has been listed as the ODI no 3607, then the 10th match  ie the Pak-WI match has been listed as the 3608th ODI, then comes the 11th match which was washed out even before the toss or a single ball being bowled. Then comes the 12th match, ie the Afg-SL match which has been listed as the ODI no. 3609. Got that??? The washed out match hasn't even been considered as a valid match by the Cricinfo! 3609 comes after 3608 ;) Whatever then the 13th match  ie the Ind-SA match has been enlisted as the 3610th ODI match ever. So now you wanna say that Cricinfo is wrong too and you are right???  Arka   92  09:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in Cricinfo's numbering of matches. The tournament had 49 matches, of which 48 were played. Australia and Bangladesh received a point each as a result of their match being abandoned, so the match was significant to the tournament. It existed. – PeeJay 09:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please find some sources saying there were 48 matches not 49. Because, , all say 49 matches. Wikpedia works on sources, therefore it should be 49. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not fighting for it to be included only and only as 48 matches. I am just stating the fact that Cricinfo is not considering it as an ODI match. That's the argument I presented here. And as per the 3 links you provided, I have no problem with it if they are calling it a 49-match event. But at the same time, it is an arguable fact that Cricinfo considers the opposite. So these links are contradictory.  Arka   92  10:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cricinfo hasn't scrubbed the Australia v Bangladesh match from its records though. See here, where the match is still referred to as the 11th match of the tournament, and here, where it still has an ODI number. – PeeJay 13:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cricinfo does not include it here it has match 3607 (NZ v Eng); match 3608 (WI v Pak); match 3609 (Afg v SL).  Alan Davidson (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But it does include it here and here. The tournament was made up of 49 matches, it just happened that only 48 were played. – PeeJay 09:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 49. (Just adding to this discussion so it doesn't get archived- IP is still changing it to 48).

New table added
A new table has been added, and was wondering what people thought about it. Personally I'm against it, because it's unsourced, and provides very little value, other than being a list of random stats, which IMO fails WP:NOTSTATS. I've temporarily removed it for the above reasons, but copied it below here. Note that it's almost certainly more appropriate at List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics, which does appear to be the place for tables of statistics. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. There's no evidence that the ICC actually ranked the 14 teams in this way, and there's no reason we should either. – PeeJay 12:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Team rankings
All 14 teams are ranked based on their performance in this Cricket World Cup.


 * This table is WP:OR. Much more interesting, and properly citable, are the changes in ICC ODI Championship ranking of the teams during the World Cup tournament. Rather show what happened to team positions in the official ICC rankings as a consequence of their performances. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I originally removed the table when I saw it, and was surprised to find my revert was later restored. I agree with Roger that this is original research. At the end of the tournament did anyone report that "Zimbabwe finished 11th"? Will people say that in 4 years' time when previewing the next Cup? Of course not on both counts, so any table purporting to "rank Zimbabwe 11th" is original research. I considered moving it to the statistics article (after checking to see if it had been copied from there) but decided against it because I don't think it really belongs there either. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 Cricket World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929011425/http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=17042_1315836720 to http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=17042_1315836720
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150330201852/http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2014/media-releases/83319/icc-announces-match-officials-for-icc-cricket-world-cup-2015 to http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2014/media-releases/83319/icc-announces-match-officials-for-icc-cricket-world-cup-2015

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2015 Cricket World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112064855/http://www.hindustantimes.com/sports-news/cricketnews/world-cup-2015-95-days-to-go-australia-already-minting-money/article1-1285115.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/sports-news/cricketnews/world-cup-2015-95-days-to-go-australia-already-minting-money/article1-1285115.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202205353/http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/news/2015/media-releases/84891/outcomes-from-icc-board-and-committee-meetings to http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/news/2015/media-releases/84891/outcomes-from-icc-board-and-committee-meetings
 * Added tag to http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/events_and_awards/CWC/newsdetails.php?newsId=17892_1321836600
 * Added tag to http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/events_and_awards/CWC/newsdetails.php?newsId=16699_1313488800
 * Added tag to http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/events_and_awards/CWC/newsdetails.php?newsId=16768_1313992440
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150118062954/http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/mc/2014/mc217579.htm to http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/mc/2014/mc217579.htm
 * Added tag to http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=18836_1327733640
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150315004114/http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/about/281/media to http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/about/281/media
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131114035901/http://www.foxtel.com.au/whats-on/foxtel-insider/fox-sports-and-the-nine-network-home-to-iccs-cricket-world-c-196879.htm to http://www.foxtel.com.au/whats-on/foxtel-insider/fox-sports-and-the-nine-network-home-to-iccs-cricket-world-c-196879.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210173953/http://www.sportsliveinfo.com/cmc-tv-live-streaming-cricket-world-cup-2015/ to http://www.sportsliveinfo.com/cmc-tv-live-streaming-cricket-world-cup-2015/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113125743/http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/news/2014/media-releases/83297/icc-announces-schedule-of-warm-up-matches-for-icc-cricket-world-cup-2015 to http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/news/2014/media-releases/83297/icc-announces-schedule-of-warm-up-matches-for-icc-cricket-world-cup-2015
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140208064256/http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/fixtures to http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/fixtures
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318103110/http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/news/2015/media-releases/86718/bangladesh-and-sri-lanka-qualify-for-icc-cricket-world-cup-2015-quarter-finals to http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/news/2015/media-releases/86718/bangladesh-and-sri-lanka-qualify-for-icc-cricket-world-cup-2015-quarter-finals
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140208064256/http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/fixtures to http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/fixtures

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2015 Cricket World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113031111/http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2015/media-releases/88460/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015-gives-economic-boost-to-australia-and-new-zealand to http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2015/media-releases/88460/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015-gives-economic-boost-to-australia-and-new-zealand
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924112534/http://www.sydneycricketground.com.au/venues/seating-capacities/ to http://www.sydneycricketground.com.au/venues/seating-capacities/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113031111/http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2015/media-releases/88460/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015-gives-economic-boost-to-australia-and-new-zealand to http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2015/media-releases/88460/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015-gives-economic-boost-to-australia-and-new-zealand

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018
Schintendulkar (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Hi Sir, I am Wikipedia Register user and I want to update dead link and redirect into 100% new working link.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2020
the logo prodcts complete 112.134.72.91 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ It is not clear what you are requesting here. Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cricket World Cup which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)