Talk:2019 Cricket World Cup/Archive 1

Host Countries
Why arent we allocating Wales to the list of host nations if we continually keep saying the 1999 and 2003 were given a myriad of nations when the main hosts were England and South Africa and for pure marketing, media and other purposes was called England 99 and South Africa 2003? If we are going to be silly by listing all nations the 1983's should have Wales and the 2003 2015 Rugby World Cup should be Wales, England, Scotland, France 1999 then Wales and England 2015? It is pedantic and ridiculous plus clutters up the boxes with too many flags and listed nations. Just place a NOTE and stating "multiple venues in..." instead.--Auxodium II (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ranking
Regarding the rankings, can't we interactively act with the official ICC website so that rankings get updated automatically? SheikhAzizulHakim (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Early fixtures
Having added a load of information on fixtures today, I have realised that the linked reports state that the fixtures still need to be approved by the main ICC board. There is nothing on the ICC website about this either. Should the fixtures be deleted as WP:CRYSTAL until an official announcement is made? From cricinfo :"...the schedule, were approved by the ICC' chief executives committee (CEC) during the ICC's quarterly meetings on Monday and Tuesday. The ICC Board, which meets on Thursday, is yet to ratify the CEC's decisions." Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree they shouldn't be there until officially ratified. Comment them out if you want. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Moot point now, as the ICC have confirmed them - they seem to match to the original list from yesterday. Thanks to Spike for doing the legwork in adding them here.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018
136.2.16.184 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Points table has already divided in 2 groups, which is not correct. 136.2.16.184 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All 10 teams are placed in single group only as per tournament format. 42774 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Venues
Do we really need 2 tables showing the same information? The only difference seems to be that 1 has the number of matches, the other a fairly unhelpful photo. Spike &#39;em (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * True, no of matches can be added in table with photos like 2016 ICC World Twenty20 42774 (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tables merged, though I cant get it to sit alongside the map. May try reformatting / adjusting widths later Spike &#39;em (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Links
Just because other articles fail to follow clear guidelines, it does not mean it has to be accepted here. Please explain why WP:DUPLINK and WP:OVERLINK don't apply to this article. Please try to avoid WP:OTHER and show some clear discussion which lead to a consensus to ignore these guidelines. There is no discussion of this on the 2015 article, so please tell me where it is. Spike &#39;em (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Moving the comment below from my talk page to keep things in one place. If you don't want this here, then feel free to delete it. Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was in the Pakistan tour of England and Ireland 2016 talkpage, Talk:Pakistani cricket team in England and Ireland in 2016 where Lugnuts asked me to go with linking venues after a discussion citing logic, you can check there... Plus I was going by the past articles of 2015 World Cup and so on where every venue name is linked which there must have been some kind of a long standing convention or consensus as might have been the case so it is indeed important and relevant in this case to consider past precedents... Cricket246 (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think 2 people deciding to do something (whilst even admitting that it may be in breach of guidelines) on a little visited page counts as forming a consensus that other people need to take note of. Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * For the sake of consistency and completeness it can be done in that way... If you can't link the stadium name 20 times in one article why not the venue name?? Why preferential treatment in that aspect then? Cricket246 (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be quite happy to de-link repeated mentions of the venues in the list of matches, but feel they are at least directly relevant to the match in a way that the location is not. The MOS states that links are not meant to be used as a method of formatting / to make the page look nice / consistent. Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough argument . So as per this protocol would it be okay for me to de-link the venues in 2015 and 2011 World Cup pages?? Cricket246 (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

What's going on with the sub-description on mobile?
It says "Worst world cup ever" for some reason. How do we change that? Linkiscool99 (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Where do you see that? It is not in the page source, and I can't see it when I call up on my phone. Spike &#39;em (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was coming from the Wikidata source, the description of which had been vandalised. I've reverted it on Wikidata. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was:. Also see Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup/Archive 1. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   12:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Cricket World Cup → 2019 ICC Cricket World Cup – This is the official name of the tournament and I just do not understand why we have to use the term “2019 Cricket World Cup” to indude the ICC within the title as the main title when other articles use the official name of the tournament ie “2018 FIFA World Cup” so why not “2019 ICC Cricket World Cup 2A02:C7F:5622:2000:E583:FB32:ED78:ED8E (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME is preferred to WP:OFFICIALNAME. Please show that the majority of English language sources refer to the tournament using ICC in the title. There are multiple World Cups in a range of sports every year, so they need to be disambiguated. The football one uses FIFA as its disambiguation as different countries use different words for the name of the sport. If this were the British wikipedia it would probably be 2018 Football World Cup or American would be 2018 Soccer World Cup. There is no confusion over using Cricket World Cup. Spike &#39;em (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No one calls it the ICC Cricket World Cup except for the ICC themselves, but even the official website of the competition is at cricketworldcup.com. – PeeJay 12:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Sources all refer to it as the Cricket World Cup. TripleRoryFan (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppoose for all the reasons above. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The 2018 World Cup in itself is ambigious, and so is the term "football", hence why the commonname is the 2018 FIFA World Cup. This doesn't apply for the cricket World Cup, so there's no need for the "ICC" bit.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per everyone else. Johnlp (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prize money
Shouldn't "Teams that do pass the league stage" read "do not"?
 * The source seemingly has a typo, so following the text used, the current page is verified (if not true!) If you can find an RS stating "not" then we can change it. Spike &#39;em (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Although see www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/1221724 "do not" makes more sense? As teams 5 through 10 (6 teams) wouldn't be known until 1 through 4 qualify for the semi final? I think the ICC web page is wrongly worded! Sorry very new to this - I believe I have just corroborated your statement - it's best to keep to the facts!

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2019
Change "Zimbabwe despite hosting the qualifying tournament failed to reach the final and will miss the World Cup for the first time since 1983." to "Zimbabwe who hosted the qualifying tournament failed to reach the final and will miss the World Cup for the first time since 1983." 117.198.247.103 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Nici</b><b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 05:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Political aspect and Pulwama Incident
Why to mention about the political incident of Pulwama? if you include this then there are several incidents related to the worldcup. This is yet another cheap attempt to defame Pakistan. This is also against the ethics of ICC. Further International hockey already accused India of associating political matters with sports by not issuing visa to players. Hammad (talk) 14:11, 07 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.114.67 (talk)
 * It probably shouldn't be in the lead, but the paragraph seems to adhere to NPOV to me. Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Points and NR
I can't find anything in the article about ...unless I haven't read closely enough.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  10:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * what points are awarded for what result
 * why a No Result match is not rescheduled
 * I've added some details to the Group stage intro, let me know if you think more is needed. As so many games have been rained of it is probably worth adding a quote from ICC about why reserve days weren't considered possible. Spike &#39;em (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, . On the latter, would be interesting to know why. Cheers,  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  13:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quote / ref added. Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
Separate to, but linked with previous: add an edit-notice (i.e. Template:Livescores editnotice) for the remaining duration of the event. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ See above, consensus on WP:CRIC is to update scores at intervals (including change of innings). Spike &#39;em (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Potential Venues
The 'potential venues' is limited to test/ODI stadia but shouldn't it be expanded? Last time England hosted it I think all 18 county grounds plus venues in Scotland, Ireland and Holland were used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villafancd (talk • contribs) 09:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As we see the matches are are not played due to rain so you could change venue where there is no rain in England only Pavan1224 (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this a suggestion to improve the article or a question about climate in the UK? If the latter, then there is nowhere in UK that you can guarantee that it will not rain, at any time of the year. Spike &#39;em (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Live results
"Innings break" is not a proper result (and in any case it ceases to be accurate only a few minutes after being added...); also editors should refrain from adding live scores in any case; this has been discussed and resolved for football, see Template:Editnotices/Page/2019 FIFA Women's World Cup - the same should apply for cricket or any other sport, really. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is consensus on WP:CRIC to only update the scores at breaks in play (either intervals or change of innings). Spike &#39;em (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit notice below quotes a consensus reached at WP:FOOTY which is a separate project, so unless there is an overall WP consensus on this, then the CRIC consensus is equally valid. Spike &#39;em (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:CRIC started, so see there for wider commentsSpike &#39;em (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Cross table
For the love of organisation, someone please put a cross table in there that shows which teams have already played which team and the results, akin to this :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%9319_Premier_League#Results — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.48.4.222 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is already a full fixture / result list; a cross-tab would be over-kill IMO. Spike &#39;em (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be nice to have this visually summarized that way; it seems especially strange that the much less useful "Tournament Progress" exists. Whether I'm actually going to spend the time doing it myself is an open question.  12.221.141.99 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will throw my two cents and stay that the only time that the progression section comes up is for the Indian Premier League and this World Cup so really this section isn't really needed full stop. In terms of the cross table, that would be viable if they were playing home and away but they are not so that is also off the table. HawkAussie (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree the progression table is pointless, but I think a cross table would be really helpful. It gives readers an idea of whether teams have played strong or weak opposition, and I've seen it for round-robins in other sports. It makes no difference whether or not it's home and away or not, it is still helpful. I'll have a go if I find time. Adpete (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

^^ Here we go. In fact if I can NRR in, it could replace the main table. Adpete (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That would need the cricket specific columns merged into the WDL module (or possibly the cross-tab merged the other way) Spike &#39;em (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of updating the table with the relevant templates cr and cricon. $\color{blue}\chi$chi (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I updated results through July 3. 70.131.48.56 (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

top wicket taker
Who is the highest wicket taker in in worldcup 2019 ? Mrtiwary01 (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is listed in the article. Spike &#39;em (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Order of the sections
On what basis are the sections ordered? After "Tournament summary" section, there is "Warm-up matches" and then again a "Group stage" section which describes the format of the tournament. Totally illogical. 2402:3A80:CD2:EE03:5463:85B1:1A81:52B8 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I say below, the "Tournament summary - group stage" section should be removed. What is there is detail, not summary, and it belongs in 2019 Cricket World Cup group stage. Adpete (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary - Yay or nay?
So I have slowly being working on the summary for the tournament as we are having this tournament. So my question is do you want to have a tournament summary for this page for people who doesn't want to look through every scorecard. HawkAussie (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Prose trumps stats any day of the week, so yes. The section might get quite long if every match is mentioned though, so may be better having a short summary on this page and a fuller recap on the group stage article. Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did thought about that and my initial thought was to do it in one whole chunk. But that would feel super long so I am going to split up so that it would be week by week. Of course their is certain matches which are one-sided that don't detail while others might need some detail. For example I think the paragraph between Sri Lanka and Afghanistan might be a too long but we sure see as the tournament progress. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * My initial thought was to move it to the group-stage page if it gets too big, with having the summary on the main page of when each team is knocked out or progresses. However, it's a thankless task in trying to write a decent summary, so I'm happy to leave it. Great work in trying to summarise it!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up a bit of SPAG in the summary, but one question: how are the weeks defined? Week 1 runs from Thursday 30 June to Tuesday 4th June and Week 2 from Wednesday to Tuesday. Is there a reason week 1 is only 6 days long? Spike &#39;em (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought the inital match was on the Wednesday not Thursday, so that is why I have gone from Wednesday to Tuesday. So probably adjust the summary to go from Thursday to Wednesday instead of what it currently is. HawkAussie (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The first match was Thursday 30th June. Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved comment
Bangladesh MD-Razu Khan (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What about Bangladesh? Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Bangladesh can't place in Qualification table!!!!!! Padmanabha Dhala (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"Tournament Summary - Group Stage" section should be removed
The "Group stage" weekly summaries are very arbitrary - some matches are mentioned, other are not. Instead, all verbal game summaries should be moved to 2019 Cricket World Cup group stage. Once the group stage is complete, this could be replace by a 1-2 paragraph summary of the entire group stage (Australia did well, SAF did unexpectedly poorly, etc). Adpete (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've moved the talk of boycotting the India-Pakistan match to a better place. I will delete "Tournament Summary" section later, unless someone can offer a good reason for it being here instead of 2019 Cricket World Cup group stage. Adpete (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Look up this page, there is already a discussion about this section. Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Prose trumps stats any day of the week", but that doesn't answer the question of whether it belongs in this article. I would argue that 45 pieces of prose is inappropriate for this article. In any case, the summary should be in the "Group Stage" section, rather than having a separate "Tournament Summary" section before the article even gets to explaining how the Group Stage works. Adpete (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We all need to be aware of WP:SUMMARY. It simply wouldn't be appropriate to write accounts of all 45 group matches in this article, so we need to summarise, and even in the group stage article, there's no need to go into too much detail. – PeeJay 17:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok look I understand what people are trying to say and I have thought about how to try and summarize each match as it goes on. Sometimes it easy to summarize, while others you need the detail from that particular match. The main reason I wanted to do this was to have the chance of possibly having at least some details instead of just WP:NOTSTATS like most of the tournaments that we have created on here. I will admit that maybe it's slightly too long but that be shrunk after the tournament if need be. But when you get to a stage where it's too short of a summary and not have enough prose. That is the question. HawkAussie (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we at least agree to move the "Tournament Summary / Group Stage" subsection, to inside the "Group Stage" section? It makes no sense to have it before the warmup tournaments, and the description of the Group Stage; especially when it is so long and detailed. Adpete (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, but instead maybe move the warm up section to above the opening cermony is where I put it. HawkAussie (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it not be a good idea to move the "Warm-up matches" section to a separate article? They're not part of the tournament whatsoever. It would be like including the warm-up friendlies played in May/June last year in the 2018 FIFA World Cup article. That would at least solve the issue of where to put the tournament summary. – PeeJay 11:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2019
103.118.79.106 (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Broadcast Partner in Bangladesh Maasranga Television
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ___<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA <em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk   11:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Eliminated???
Isn't it still possible for Sri Lanka to climb to 4th place if the following unlikely combination of results all occur?

Sri Lanka have 2 more big wins, improving their RR above England, and their points to 10.

England lose to NZ, staying at 10.

Bangladesh lose to Australia, and then beat Pakistan. This leaves both Bangladesh and Pakistan on 9 points.

(There are actually other less likely combinations involving ties or rained off games to let Sri Lanka through.)

I haven't worked out how to edit the table to say Sri Lanka are not (yet) eliminated. It says they are already eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holland jon (talk • contribs) 09:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No : they can't equal England's number of wins, which is the secondary decider, so NRR will not be used to separate them. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Check the second line of this to confirm : How England's win affects Bangladesh and Pakistan Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, a win and a loss outweighs 2 washed-out games. That has got to be one of the silliest tie break rules I have ever seen. But still, sensible rules and Cricket world cups do not always go together! Adpete (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2019
The textbox under the picture of Joe Root says he got the first century of the tournament against Sri Lanka which contradicts the prose (and more importantly reality) which says it was against Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.169.10 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Photos from the World Cup
Has anyone got any photos that they took from the 2019 Cricket World Cup that could possibly be added to the article. HawkAussie (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Warner's average
David Warner’s average is 79.75, not 71, as he has been dismissed only 8 times (not out vs Afghanistan), therefore his average would be 638/8 which is 79.75. Please correct it Wyrden14 (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Copied table with correct info from 2019 Cricket World Cup statistics Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Defending champions
Why is it mentioned in the lead? It is misleading and can have people thinking that Australia won the 2019 edition and are the defending champions. You can add it after the tournament ends as "Australia entered the tournament as the defending champions and finished runners-up/semifinalists/defended their title." 117.213.163.106 (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, especially since there is no mention of the results of *this* tournament. Adpete (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Results of this tournament? Maybe because the tournament is not over yet? lol --Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * When I wrote that, all round robin matches had been played and the semi-finalists had been decided, and those are results which could have been in the lead. Certainly more relevant than results from 4 years ago. Adpete (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The identities of all four semi-finalists is not necessarily relevant to the lead. The two finalists, sure, and Australia because they were defending champions, but I fail to see why we need to mention India. – PeeJay 01:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I very much disagree. The lead should summarise the article (see WP:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic."), and who made the semi-finals is a major part of the article. The lead is full of fluff which is far less relevant, e.g. the year hosting rights were awarded, what other years England has hosted the World Cup, the fact that NZ were runners-up in 2015, or how many teams played in the 2015 edition. I can name the semi-finalists of most previous World Cups, because the semi-finalists are important. I suspect no one here (and very few cricket fans) know or care what year any previous World Cup hosting rights were awarded, and few would remember how many participants each one had. Adpete (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2019
Change spelling error 'cruse' to 'cruise' in Semi-Finals section.  the English would cruse home to a eight wicket victory Beaker511 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add Controversies

 * 1) Prior the tournament India written a letter to ICC to suspend Pakistan participation in world cup due to that time on going standoff between both countries. ICC declined India such request.
 * 2) Rains abandoned four matches of the world cup. In almost every match of first half of the group stage is interrupted by rain. Experts raised question on ICC timing of world cup in England ahead of rainy season.
 * 3) Heavy bails, that don’t even fall 5 times in matches raised questions.
 * 4) Controversy between ICC and the Military Badge on MS Dhoni’s gloves also comes in limelight.
 * 5) Security issues raised by BCCI when two plane fled over stadium during matches citing territorial issue related to India and Pakistan.
 * 6) In the Final between England and New Zealand during the last over of regular play as Stokes was scampering back in desperation for the second run, the ball deflected off Stokes’ bat to hand him four overthrow runs, ultimately adding four extra runs in favor of England. Later Williamsons says “That was a bit of shame” in post match presentation.
 * 7) After declaring England winners by virtue of scoring more boundaries due to tie in Super Over ICC rule faces criticism. Fans and cricket experts including former and current player raised question over this rule on their social account. <I>Sumit Singh</I> T 09:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As per above and WP:CSECTION, add them in the appropriate part of the article, don't create a controversies section just for the hell of it. Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And could you find a source for point 2 (rain): June and July are among the the driest months (by total rainfall and number of days of rain), so I'd like to see an expert who thinks that June and July is a rainy season and that the timing of the tournament was wrong. (See Climate of the United Kingdom) Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1, 2 & 6 are all mentioned in the article already. Please find a source other than people spouting off on twitter for the last one. I don't think Dhoni's gloves or the planes are worthy of mention. Bailgate, maybe, but as with umpiring decisions, everyone has forgotten about this already. Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Controversies
Is one over of bad umpire decisions a controversy?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me
 * My thoughts exactly. Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I missed my train stop removing it! If we mention every ropey umpiring decision then it will double the length of the page. Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Spike. Hope you got to your station!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe the bails are this tournament's "controversy"!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just about to ask if we needed a section on bailgate! Spike &#39;em (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * what's about rain? It is currently on top of the table. ☺ <I>Sumit Singh</I> T 03:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Dhoni's glove insignia is a controversy UtubeGodwin (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Storm in a teacup more like. There is no need to have a controversies section if there are no real controversies. Spike &#39;em (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Spike &#39;em Plane flying above stadium citing "Justice for Kashmir & Baluchistan" is not also a controversial event or we have to wait until the plane drops something during match.This is lack of security issues and controversial. <I>Sumit Singh</I> T 04:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What is controversial is the ICC claiming that the local police were complicit in restricting free speech and legitimate political protests. Well done West Yorkshire Police. Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And from what I saw, the ICC never complained about security concerns, just the fact that political messages were shown. Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BCCI raised its concern about security and Trafford airspace remain shut now in Ind vs NZ match. Read here<I>Sumit Singh</I> T 11:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to be another storm-in-a-teacup that no-one will remember in a month's time. We don't need to record every minor news event related to the tournament, and particularly give it false weight by adding a "Controversies" section. If you feel it needs to be mentioned, add a line about it to the Tournament summary section. Spike &#39;em (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * May be western world never has any controversy and it is only for eastern world. Signing off <I>Sumit Singh</I> T 04:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe will be acceptable for all as a tournament "controversy"!? UtubeGodwin (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is worthy of mention in the report on the final, but still no need to create a Controversy section. Spike &#39;em (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - Hosting
The page states that this is the fifth time that the Cricket World Cup has taken place in England and Wales, listing all the times it was held in England. Surely it should say that it's the 3rd time it has taken place in England and Wales, but only the second time both countries have hosted it together? Twadebarcelona (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right! Fixed. Adpete (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead (again)
How do people feel about a lead with more about the tournament and less about the organisation? There has been a lot of to-and-fro over referencing the text about Associate Nations and full member nations, but in my opinion it doesn't belong in the lead at all, because WP:LEAD says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents", and I don't think the fine details of associate and non-associate member are the most important contents. For the same reason, I think all 4 semi-finalists should be named. Here is my suggested edit:. Adpete (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think mentioning the winners and who they beat in the final is one of the most important pieces of information there is, so I disagree with you moving the info about the final to the third paragraph. I don't think it's particularly important to mention any other matches though, so I disagree with adding all four semi-finalists. That said, I do agree that too much emphasis is being placed on the minutiae of the tournament format. How about this? – PeeJay 13:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement on what was there, but I still think it should be more or less in order. I don't see anything in MOS:BEGIN that says that the most important result must be in the first paragraph, and having it there in such detail reads rather strangely to me. We can mention England won at the very start, but the details of how they won belong later on, so that the lead reads like a short summary of the event. Also, while it was much too long before, I think the reduction of the number of teams from 14 to 10 deserves a sentence or half-sentence. Adpete (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Think about it from the reader’s point of view. If they’re coming to read this article, they’ll want the most important info first: where and when was it played and who won. No point splitting up info about the final to two different places in the lead section as that would probably just be confusing. – PeeJay 08:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how the Manual of Style MOS:LEAD says to do it. There is nothing that says the winner/main result must be in the first paragraph (let alone details of the final). Adpete (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Without reading it, I'm pretty certain MOS:LEAD doesn't say anything about how to write a lead section for an article about a sports tournament of any kind. The lead section doesn't have to follow the exact order of the article as a whole; it makes far more sense to give the reader the most useful information first. I agree with you that we should mention that England won the tournament, but to say it in a six-word sentence when you go on to explain it in greater detail anyway further down makes no sense to me. Related info should go together, simple as that. – PeeJay 00:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is why it should be later in the lead, instead of having a lead which jumps all over the place. But whatever. Adpete (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're overthinking this. – PeeJay 05:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019
Reliable source (1): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/07/15/earth-did-england-win-world-cup-final-fine-margins-umpire-error/

Reliable source (2): https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/cricket-world-cup/114259984/cricket-world-cup-final-from-a-top-exumpire-england-should-only-have-got-five-runs-not-six-after-that-overthrow

Request change as detailed below, as the detail as it stands makes specific reference to the actual act, with no reference to post-match expert analysis which bears directly on the runs awarded. Given its significance, the analysis should therefore be included for context.

Original:

Final
After New Zealand won the toss and chose to bat first, Henry Nicholls' first half-century of the tournament and a further 47 from wicket-keeper Tom Latham helped the Kiwis to a total of 241/8 from their 50 overs, as Chris Woakes and Liam Plunkett each secured three wickets for the hosts. Defending a middling score, the New Zealand bowlers bowled effectively, hampering England's top order, with only Jonny Bairstow managing more than a start with 36. With the loss of their top order, England fell to 86/4 in the 24th over; however, a century partnership between Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler for the fifth wicket got them back into the game before Buttler was caught. But with five overs to play, England still required another 46 runs and the bottom order were forced to bat more aggressively. Stokes managed to farm the strike and, more crucially, score runs, leaving England needing 15 to win from the final over, two wickets still in hand. After two dot balls, Stokes first planted a six into the stands at deep mid-wicket, before a deflection off his bat as he was coming back for two that would go to the boundary for an additional four. The final two deliveries went for a run each, but England lost their last two wickets going for a second run each time. With the scores tied at 241, the match went to a Super Over. England returned Stokes and Buttler to the crease, and they handled Trent Boult's bowling to accumulate 15 runs without loss. For New Zealand, Martin Guptill and James Neesham went up to face Jofra Archer needing at least 16 runs to claim the title. Archer's over started badly, beginning with a wide, and a steady accumulation of runs along with a six left New Zealand needing two from the final delivery. Guptill hit the ball out to deep mid-wicket and tried to scamper back for the winning run, but Roy's throw in to Buttler was a good one, and Guptill was run out well short of his crease. New Zealand finished with 15 runs, the Super Over tied, but England's superior boundary count (26 to New Zealand's 17) meant they claimed the World Cup title for the first time after three previous final defeats.

Suggested change:

Final
After New Zealand won the toss and chose to bat first, Henry Nicholls' first half-century of the tournament and a further 47 from wicket-keeper Tom Latham helped the Kiwis to a total of 241/8 from their 50 overs, as Chris Woakes and Liam Plunkett each secured three wickets for the hosts. Defending a middling score, the New Zealand bowlers bowled effectively, hampering England's top order, with only Jonny Bairstow managing more than a start with 36. With the loss of their top order, England fell to 86/4 in the 24th over; however, a century partnership between Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler for the fifth wicket got them back into the game before Buttler was caught. But with five overs to play, England still required another 46 runs and the bottom order were forced to bat more aggressively. Stokes managed to farm the strike and, more crucially, score runs, leaving England needing 15 to win from the final over, two wickets still in hand. After two dot balls, Stokes first planted a six into the stands at deep mid-wicket, before a deflection off his bat as he was coming back for two that would go to the boundary for an additional four.

(Insert): Former leading umpire Simon Taufel has confirmed that England should only have been awarded five runs – not six – as a result of the deflection off that fourth ball of the final over, but the International Cricket Council is leaving matters as they finished on the pitch. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/07/15/earth-did-england-win-world-cup-final-fine-margins-umpire-error/

The final two deliveries went for a run each, but England lost their last two wickets going for a second run each time. With the scores tied at 241, the match went to a Super Over. England returned Stokes and Buttler to the crease, and they handled Trent Boult's bowling to accumulate 15 runs without loss. For New Zealand, Martin Guptill and James Neesham went up to face Jofra Archer needing at least 16 runs to claim the title. Archer's over started badly, beginning with a wide, and a steady accumulation of runs along with a six left New Zealand needing two from the final delivery. Guptill hit the ball out to deep mid-wicket and tried to scamper back for the winning run, but Roy's throw in to Buttler was a good one, and Guptill was run out well short of his crease. New Zealand finished with 15 runs, the Super Over tied, but England's superior boundary count (26 to New Zealand's 17) meant they claimed the World Cup title for the first time after three previous final defeats.

Mauri mahi mauri ora (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Mauri mahi mauri ora (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s a bit much to claim that Taufel “confirmed” anything. He gave his interpretation of the law and criticised the on-field decision, but as a former umpire with no current standing with the ICC, he’s not in a position to confirm anything. – PeeJay 11:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Taufel is a member of the ICC committee that oversees cricket's rulebook so his standing is current and relevant. But what he does is shine a light on the rule. If he is disregarded, look at the rule itself. "Rule 19.8: Overthrow or wilful act of fielder. If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be — any runs for penalties awarded to either side — and the allowance for the boundary — and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress *** if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act ***." It is what it is - simply factual. The current read: "before a deflection off his bat as he was coming back for two that would go to the boundary for an additional four" ought to be put in proper balanced context, if a fair and accurate record is a priority. Mauri mahi mauri ora (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the current text is impartial enough. – PeeJay 10:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with the assertion that the current text is good enough. Post match, the umpiring error is one of the most talked about topics in cricketing circles. Especially given the trophy came down to a single run.  This is a relevant and heavily discussed controversy (that will surely be discussed in 4 years time). To leave that issue out of this Wiki page isn't just an omission but might appear as a bias towards the side that benefited by one run from that decision.TandemTriumphans (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've re-opened the request successfully, I'm a novice, but quite right TandemTriumphans. No one's blaming England but if the article sees fit to speak to the shot, the deflection, and the runs coming from it, for sake of completeness the scale of the umpiring error deserves a mention too. The trophy actually came down to zero runs. As it stands, Wiki is looking like a biased page that's scared of the truth of the matter. Can someone do the right thing by the facts? Mauri mahi mauri ora (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * answered=no

General comments from copyedit
Hi, comments from the copyedit will go here.
 * The intro seems a little short. I would expect an article of this size to have probably 2-3 full paragraphs, preferably three. I find the last two sentences which are paragraphed to be a bit brief and would benefit from more information. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 09:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree on that part as their is some sections that are missing from the article like the fact that the tournament was reduced from 14 to 10 being the main one there. HawkAussie (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The table of venues looks a little messy with the map in there. Consider putting the map to the right of the table. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 12:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The main reason why it's that and not putting on the right side of the table is the fact that their was a massive gap in space between the prose and the table as this edit proves. The only problem is with eleven stadiums for the World Cup, it wouldn't look like however way you try and put it. HawkAussie (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed it, looks good to you? Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 17:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah that looks good HawkAussie (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The Group Stage section needs to indicate how many points a team received for a loss. I tried to look at the reference at the end of the paragraph, but there was no information on the points system provided. Maybe add a reference here? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 17:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say no as they don't get any points for a loss but will add a reference from Cricket Australia with that point system. HawkAussie (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2019
"Chris Gayle had two overturned decisions go his way before he was dismissed." should be amended to "Chris Gayle had two overturned decisions go his way before he was dismissed of an umpiring error when a no-ball the previous delivery by Mitchell Starc was missed by the on-field umpire." 108.31.96.111 (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-cricket-world-cup-2019-1144415/australia-vs-west-indies-10th-match-1144492/ball-by-ball-commentary Anubhab030119 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Check out at 10.3 overs...I hope cricinfo is a relaible enough source for you. Anubhab030119 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)