Jump to content

Talk:2007 Cricket World Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1

colouring teams by qualification status

[edit]

Are we going to colour teams by qualification status in the Super Eight stage, as we did in the Group stage?

In case anyone's wondering, irrespective of what happens in today's RSA v WI match, no team will be mathematically assured to have qualified or failed to qualify for the Finals stage (even if WI lose, they can still theoretically finish as high as third).

So let's not go all colour crazy, okay?

Hesperian 03:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If today's match between England and Bangladesh is won by either team, then no team will have qualified or failed to qualify for the finals. If it is a tie or no-result, then Australia and New Zealand will have qualified for the finals. Hesperian 00:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ireland,Sri Lanka ,South Africa could still all make it if there is a no-result with the 4th team being either Australia or New Zealand
    • The only team that has a position not available to them at the moment (Afte RSA VS WI)is WI in 1st. Catprog 04:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither of your statements are correct. Currently, Australia and New Zealand can finish no lower than fifth. Neither Sri Lanka nor South Africa can finish eighth. Bangladesh and England can finish no higher than second. Ireland and the West Indies can finish no higher than third. If there is a no-result today, it will no longer be possible for Australia or New Zealand to finish fifth. Hesperian 04:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**** Australia could get 6th SL 10 AUs 8 ,NZ 8,SA 8,Eng 8,IRL 8 (I was going by how many points teams needed to beat other teams) Catprog 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC) ***** SL(Win) V NZ ***** SL(Win) V Aus ***** NZ(Win) V Aus ***** SA(Win) V Nz ***** ENG(Win) V Ban ***** ENG(Win) V Sa ***** ENG(Win) V Wi ***** IRL(Win) V Aus ***** IRL(Win) V Ban ***** IRL(Win) V Nz ***** IRL(Win) V Sl Catprog 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For tonight match, if New Zealand win, they are through. If Souuth Africa win, Bangladesh and the Windies are eliminated. If it's a tie, NZ are through and Bangladesh and the Windies are eliminated. Big game tonight!--59.167.236.165 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mostly right. I would just add that if New Zealand win, tie or no result, then both New Zealand and Sri Lanka are through to the finals. So to summarise:
      New Zealand win
      NZ qualify, SR qualify;
      South Africa win
      BAN eliminated, WI eliminated;
      Tie or no result
      NZ qualify, SR qualify, BAN eliminated, WI eliminated.
Hesperian 04:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we coloring teams that are out?

No, only highlighting the teams that are through.--THUGCHILDz 23:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We did it in the group stages. When did it change ? Catprog 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain why we are not colouring eliminated teams? I think it gives more information that a team cannot qualify by using a darker colour. I am putting in colour. Please explain if why you dont want to colour eliminated teams. Sasank 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to that. I'm not aware that it has ever been discussed. Someone coloured Ireland in red a couple of days ago, and Thugchildz removed it. Hesperian 06:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see both sides here. It is useful to colour the teams that have been eliminated during a round, but at the end of it then obviously all the teams which are not green are eliminated, so there is no purpose. I'm not sure which is best .. -- Chuq (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's useful to colour both the teams that have clinched a spot in the next round and the ones that are mathematically out. And I think it's good (though not essential) to return the losers to white once the qualifiers are all determined. Wahkeenah 12:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concensus over the group stages was to use dark grey or red when a team is eliminated, as long as other teams are still undecided. Once the top 4 a lock in, and the bottom 4 locked in, then we revert to just using green/gray--Dacium 05:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems *completely* redundant and pointless to colour the 4 bottom teams in now that the 4 teams going through have been decided. It gives no extra indication, and grey is hardly a change from the white as it is. I've changed it to this way, respond if you have any complaints with me doing so but I can't see any reason why there should be. AllynJ 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will it have any effect on position within the finals? e.g. will it guarantee Australia first place, or guarantee Sri Lanka higher than a certain position, etc? (I realise I could work this out myself but you are the expert ;) ) -- Chuq (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it will. Table below. Hesperian 02:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Team Range of possible final positions
Currently AUS win SRI win Tie / No result
AUS 1-3 1-2 1-3 1-3
RSA 3-6 3-6 4-6 4-6
SRI 1-4 2-4 1-3 2-3
BAN 5-8
NZL 1-3
ENG 3-8 3-8 4-8 4-8
IRE 5-8
WI 4-8
    1. If RSA win tonight, they qualify for the finals, ENG and WI are eliminated, so the final four is decided.
    2. If ENG win tonight, WI, ENG and RSA all remain in contention for the remaining place in the finals.
    3. If it is a tie or no result tonight, WI are eliminated, ENG and RSA remain in contention for the remaining place in the finals, and SL are destined to play in the second semi, as they can only finish second or third.
Hesperian 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. If SRI win tonight: RSA is confirmed in fourth place, so can be added as the "away" team in the St Lucia semifinal. SRI is certain to finish second or third, so will play in the Jamaica semi, but we don't know in which position yet.
    2. If IRE win tonight: Nothing much changes
    3. If it is a tie or no result: RSA is confirmed in fourth place, so can be added as the "away" team in the St Lucia semifinal. SRI is confirmed in third place, so can be added as the "away" time in the Jamaica semifinal.
Hesperian 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NRR to three decimal places?

[edit]

Other cricket sources, for example CricInfo, show the net run rate to three decimal places. What do you think about changing it to 3 dp here too? It is very likely that the super 8s will be resolved on NRR so showing it to a greater level of detail might be worth it, plus it is an easy change. Mr splosh 07:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah its easy after we changed it to do the mathematics, just change round 2 to round 3. I think 3 fair enough because it is usually the standard.--Dacium 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semis

[edit]

A new user just added the team names to the semi-final boxes. I reverted that. As I type this, it is not known which teams will face which other teams in the semis.Ordinary Person 05:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked through the history of changes following SA vs ENG and it looked like at least five times the semi-final teams were entered (by non-registered users) then reverted by those more knowledgeable who have been doing the proper edits on this page. Is there any way that we can stop non-registered users from re-doing the same mistakes and causing us all time and effort to revert, ie is there a facility to have a warning placed on a particular edit screen, or a pop-up, or can sections be set only for registered users to maintain? Mr splosh 07:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could semi-protect it but then anyone that isn't registered wouldn't be able to edit it.--THUGCHILDz 07:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please note: The final placings will not be decided until after AUS v NZL on 20th April. Please do not attempt to fill in the teams before this result is known

I added the banner message shown above to the semi-finals section, reminding readers not to update the semi places until after AUS V NZL. This was removed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chuq and almost immediately someone added SA into the 4th place slot. What was wrong with having the large banner? it would only stay for a few days, and would save the continual reverting after edits by folk who think they are helping but are just causing more work. Mr splosh 14:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how wikipedia works.--THUGCHILDz 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that I didn't delete them, I put them in comment tags so that only editors can see them. Readers don't need to see those notices. -- Chuq (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RSA is placed fourth irrespective of what happens in the future games, SL v IRL, AUS v NZ. Can someone say why this is not the case? - 66.68.140.142 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Ireland defeats Sri Lanka by a huge margin, South Africa will be third. Tintin 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had incorrectly assumed that if two teams are tied with equal points, the head-to-head between the two applies.

Yes, this is being done a lot. Someone changed it to have all the countries listed that could make it to that specific spot but later reverted there change: perhaps we should bring that back? For example it would look like:

Might be a bit confusing, though, considering the first box could be read as one team playing itself, as Sri/NZL can finish 2nd/3rd. Not sure if it's even worth the hassle, but it's worth considering. AllynJ 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No nothing should be added until it's confirmed.--THUGCHILDz 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RSA over faced and IRE overs bowled

[edit]

These figures have been adjusted in the table at 02:14 April 18th by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.46.143.239 but the previous values matched those figures on cricinfo. Does this mean cricinfo have it wrong? I have not gone through all the scorecards to check if the details given are correct. Mr splosh 08:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Mr splosh 14:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Permanent" ODI status

[edit]

Surely the ICC doesn't use such an awful definition of a team having permanent ODI status until a certain time. This would represent a contradiction in terms - the "permanent temporary" status. Perhaps a better word (in the absence of the ICC actually doing that) would be full. From what I read, Kenya and Ireland have full ODI status until 2009 (or whenever); clearly not permanent.

No the ICC don't use that term, only various sections of the media too lazy to do their research. Ireland's status has not changed as a result of their performance in this World Cup. If you excuse the little plug, I wrote a post on my blog covering this which should sum up the situation here. Andrew nixon 12:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens is basically:

Ireland stay an associate member, eligible to play Championship level ODI's whilst remaining an associate member. In other words, the whole effect of Ireland's wins is to put them on a table that means basically nothing for them because they won't get the matches to make it worthwhile.

In other words, good press and that's about it. (And probable tournaments with Kenya and the two lowest Test countries).

( And I was about to edit my post and fix my error anyways.

In addition, Kenya had their full ODI status stripped a few years back (they apparently did have full ODI status) for administration related reasons. So they were full ODI members, but are no longer - which may have been the source for the confusion, as Kenya were awarded that (it wasn't automatic.)

60.226.133.172 13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya was never full member, there's no such thing as full ODI members, you become a full member when you can test status that's it. Associates gets ODI status, Kenya had it permanently but now they too have to go through the check up every 4 years(world cup qualifiers) until they gain test status. And no Ireland will get matches against top nations too, they have games against India and South Africa lined up for the summer and associates nowadays play double the # of games they ever did.--THUGCHILDz 01:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


All round performance

[edit]

There is a table in this article showing the top three "all rounders" so far. How is this being assessed? Is some relative weighting of wickets and runs being employed?

Ordinary Person 10:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where this has come from: the source listed below at Cricinfo has no specific stats for it either. Voting delete, certainly on this article: if someone wants to include it on the WC2007 Stats page WITH a source I would have no problems. AllynJ 13:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this is considered POV. You can't really rate two separate things together like that to come up with a new one. It may be legitimate, however, to include players who got at least 5 wickets and 200 runs, or something along those lines. --mdmanser 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Attendance

[edit]

It is a well-documented fact that this cup did not do as well for the organizers as they had hoped. It is also well-documented that organizers alienated the locals by their very strict policies and high ticket prices. Why is this controversial? Someone keeps removing it. 75.62.129.40 15:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one removed it. It's in the criticism section.--THUGCHILDz 17:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see it. Sorry about the last edit. The poor attendance is very notable, since many of the impoverished nations hosting were banking on gate receipts, which ICC actions severly hampered.75.62.129.40 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, and I totally get what you're saying and stuff but you still have to have a neutral point of view with providing both sides. Which is now done. Also on the side note, remember that the nation's wouldn't really get $ from the tickets; it would be the local organizers who would. And they were mainly in charge with the ICC just overseeing it.--THUGCHILDz 01:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team templates

[edit]

What is wrong with all the national team templates? The images aren't showing up...? - Ozzykhan 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continual updating of score for match in progress

[edit]

This happened a lot during one of the last Super8 matches, and is pointless really as there are other sites with live scores. However, amongst the changes was some vandalism on the score of the India vs Ban match (which the editor changed to a win for India). It went un-noticed for a day or so because there was a update for the section every 5 minutes. Someone anonymous is updating the current match SRI vs NZ score (3 times so far) so we need to watch that there is not a bit of valdalism slipped in that goes unnoticed.Mr splosh 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let's just put a stop to continuous updates. Doops | talk 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - it's annoying. I just undo it if I see it. Precedence is set here, see pt. 6. Feel free to do revert it whenever you see it. AllynJ 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but part 6 does not set a precedence. A current score is verifiable by many sources. A revert would be a waste of yours and everyone elses time because someone else is just going to add the score later.--Dacium 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, people: "precedent". :) Doops | talk 21:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My undoing of it takes 20 seconds of time. And if I don't, if someone's updated to say the 20th over, by the time someone else comes to edit it they're just going to remove and rewrite the majority of it anyway ... I have no problem with updating at the end of an innings but during the match it's beyond silly as it just gets in the way. As well as the fact people rush things in order to get eRespect (because it's oh so necessary!) so it'll often end up only half-filled or with incorrect information in it.
And yeah, sorry, I'm a bit tired. Only got 3 hours of sleep because I got up to watch the game. :p AllynJ 22:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On updating of scores - don't know if it's vandalism or not, but the last game seems to be missing from the Super 8 sub-page. 60.226.133.172 05:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Doops | talk 06:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Player of the tournament

[edit]

Would it be a good idea to put the "Player of the tournament" in the info box ie change the info box to include this for all world cup series. The POTT would be just as (more so?) important as the highest run scorer or leading wicket taker.
Also I've seen tables with the ranking of the player of the tournament. Were these official or were they just aussie channel nine's rankings? - Ctbolt 09:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was McGrath at the top by about 3 points? I saw some rankings of players at the tournament that were apparently based off of the commentators taking a vote for the top 3 players per game, points add up. Sounds a bit silly, though - but that's just personal opinion (especially since Hayden wasn't even in the top 5 I don't think... :p). Unfortunately I don't know of anywhere that would have a source for this - it seemed to be the intellectual property of bSkyb, or whoever owns the transmission rights. AllynJ 09:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could do it, but please make it an optional one.--THUGCHILDz 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No 'Man of the Series' was awarded in1975, 1979, 1983 and 1987. The first was awarded in 1993. The award was changed to 'Player of the Tournament' in 1999 and then to 'Player of the Series' in 2003 - Ctbolt 03:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Amateurs' hit 'professionals' into the stands

[edit]

As with other recent world tournaments, I found this Wikpedia article far supererior, in terms of hard information and keeping up with the results and developments, than any news and sports websites on the net. It is much easier to browse than any sports results service. Congratulations to all concerned. Rexparry sydney 01:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is good isn't it, considering its just a page from a whole bunch of people contributing.--Dacium 23:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - many thanks to those involved in keeping this page up-to-date. It was far superior to all the commercial sites. Far Canal 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the intro??

[edit]

The Australian team have now won three consecutive World Cups without losing a single match.

Didn't the Aussies lose quite a few matches in the 99' edition? Of the top of my head, I can remember losing to the Kiwis.

Tommy Stardust 01:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, I'll make the correction--Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 03:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, its already been done.--Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the wording should be they haven't lost a watch from when they won their first world cup.--Dacium 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing conditions/Final

[edit]

Could someone add to the explanation of the situation that occured with the premature end to the final, by explaining the bad light playing conditions and how the umpiring team interpreted them at the end of this game? the media has not provided any real clear answers as yet 202.36.134.22 04:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current revision sounds plausible to me, though I have no idea myself - that it was too dark to play any more but since there were only 3 overs left they decided to just bite the bullet and play them anyway. AllynJ 07:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that the tournament ended in complete farce. Phu2734 09:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd better make a new page for tournament criticisms, it might make this article a little too long *chuckle* 218.102.76.129

Mello

[edit]

The article says, "Mello has no race, species, age or gender", then refers to it as "he". That's obviously contradictory but I can't edit it due to not being a registered user (and if I register now I'll be a "newly-registered" user.) - Greg

I'll change it. But you may want to register anyway and join the project. :) --THUGCHILDz

OK, you've convinced me. ;)

Notable event (and record) missed?

[edit]

Well, I know it's not listed; what I'm asking is whether it's notable enough to put in, here and in 2007 Cricket World Cup statistics. It's this: Imran Nazir's 160 for Pakistan against Zimbabwe on 21st March was the highest List A score made in the West Indies.[1] As it happens, Matthew Hayden's 158 for Australia v West Indies six days later also beat the old record. My personal view is that it's easily notable enough, but I'm hesitant to add it as I'm tired and might have missed something obvious. Loganberry (Talk) 02:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not on it, than go ahead but please make sure you don't break the chronological order. Also what old record did the 158 break?--THUGCHILDz 02:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 158 (and the 160, of course) beat the 153* made by Dawnley Joseph for Windward Islands against Jamaica in 1997-98.[2]
Incidentally, India's 413/5 against Bermuda was the highest team score in a List A match in the West Indies, beating the 409/6 made by Northern Windward Islands against Trinidad and Tobago in 2001-02.[3] I think that's worth adding too, but as mentioned above I'm too tired to be sure I won't make a mistake, so I'll only add these two records (if nobody else already has) when I'm clear-headed again. Loganberry (Talk) 03:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now done, in both articles. Loganberry (Talk) 14:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retirees

[edit]

Okay, so a few weeks ago someone added a 'Retirees' section, which I removed soon after for various reasons: I believe I was correct in doing so as it was poorly written, and listed about 4-5 people max. However, I think adding such a sub-section, perhaps under Overview#Notable events , would be a good idea; providing we list all the players who did so. Thoughts? Thanks. AllynJ 16:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's really needed.--THUGCHILDz 00:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. It seems like something that people could be interested in, certainly as much as some info on the page. AllynJ 13:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need?

[edit]

Hi., do we need the scorecards of first round and super eight matches in their seperate articles as well as in this article. my take is that a summary and the points table is sufficient here, with the points table being the only duplication between the 2 articles. Let me know. Kalyan 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should stay. Doesn't matter if there's duplicated materials on different articles as long as they are relevant to the article. Main articles are for in-dept information on the subject of the article but other article that the subject falls into should have a summary of it and that's what the scorecards are.--THUGCHILDz 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this page will cover the overview of the entire tournament. i was intending to remove the scorecards from this page (it is already in the 'daughter' pages) and replace with an analysis of group stage matches and super-8. Please let me know your thoughts before i embark down that path. Kalyan 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The analysis should be on the respective article, the scorecards IMO is the overview of the tournament while the analysis are the details. If someone wanted to look at a quick check on who Ireland beat to go the super 8, it would be easier to look at the scorecards than to read the whole analysis and so imo the scorecards are the overview while the analysis are more of a detail kind of things. Although, it would be good if you could provide some analysis for some of the matches in the group stage and super 8 which doesn't have any yet.--THUGCHILDz 19:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom?

[edit]

Anyone else reckon this could be taken to GA soon? I'm pretty happy with the contents myself. There are two things that definitely need sorting first, however:

  1. The lead, it's too short, I reckon. Unfortunately I'm terrible at writing lead sections, anyone reckon they'd be able to?
  2. WP:EMBED in the Notable Events section. Not sure how else to incorporate this section, however... Anyone got any thoughts?

Thanks. AllynJ 21:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Possibly add a section "Event summary" with all the events as they happened, as well as dates for when teams qualified, results, and so forth. Personally I would like to see the ODI templates go and just have the overview table, alternatively just short results. The templates should be kept for the Super Eight and Group Stage section, as they take up too much space (the article is 86 kB, and this is by far the easiest way to cut down). Point 1) would then tie in with 2).
My thoughts:
  1. Leadup section needs to be sorted and some mention about the opening ceremony made (at present the only link is in a mergeto and the template at the bottom)
  2. I think a section showing ODI rankings after the tournament will be useful. Will dig them out before it's too late.
Apart from that, it looks okay. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me what you mean with regards to the proposed event summary section? Can't visualise what you're saying. Plus, bear in mind how much of this is going to be reference links and wikicode and it is probably under 50kB or so. AllynJ 23:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Sam Vimes/Sandbox13 Sam Vimes | Address me 08:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way it is right now, why do we have to change it?--THUGCHILDz 05:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean re: the text, because it fails WP:EMBED and so can never go above B class. If you mean re: the scorecards, I'm undecided. I think they do take up a huge amount of space, and pehraps just creating a one line equivalent, perhaps something along the lines of User:AllynJ/Sandbox2 would work. Whilst ideally perhaps mentioning motm in there would be good, the template doesn't allow you to without substituting it in and then editing it to do so, which is a bit annoying. AllynJ 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of Sam Vimes though with a bit of modification. Instead of the group stage classified as first and second week, we should probably do a paragraph for each group. In the supersixes, we can retain the 2 legs as provided. Also, more data is required in the semifinals and finals. I am willing to volunteer (along with others) for cleaning the entire section up and probably taking the article to FA/GA.
As i had discussed in the previous item on the talk page, i find the scorecard in both the main article and daughter article (of group stages and Super 8) excessive. We only need it in one place and that happens to be the group stage.
WRT, GA - i don't think the article is there and needs more effort esp in coverage. For eg: what happened to the concluding ceremony? We can also bring the opening ceremony into the main article itself. And for FA, we need a lot more pics that we currently have. --Kalyan 08:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, by group seems more sensible than by date for the group stages, to me. I think the coverage is generally okay, a section on the closing ceremony would be good. Other than that, the sub-articles are pretty comprehensive on their specific subjects. Not sure what else there is to add. I don't think we *need* more pictures, they're not a necessity at GA or FA level; though getting some more would definitely do the article some good. AllynJ 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...

[edit]

So, is anyone actually opposed to this introduction? I know User:THUGCHILDz said he liked it as it is, but if this is get to GA (which I firmly believe it can do, and somewhat swiftly at that if some people work on it), it does need to change.

I'll leave Sam a message on his talk page, as he seems to be somewhat inactive, over whether he'd like to introduce it, as I think there could otherwise be some GFDL/copyright/whatever issues, what with it not being in the article namespace... I'm not entirely sure, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. Cheers. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Hi. You havent' got round to that, but I chose today to get back to Wiki. :)
Anyway - it's perfectly fine with me to introduce that. There's a reason why I wrote it. I might even try to rewrite it group by group. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yes, sorry; I was going to but ended up falling asleep a few hours later. :x
Excellent, thanks. And welcome back. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket Prices

[edit]

Does anyone on here know how much the ticket prices were for the world cup, and if possible could you send me a link to where you found out the price - i need the reference. I'm doing my economics coursework on the world cup but i can't find anywhere that tells me the ticket prices!! Also i'd really appreciate it if anyone could give me a link to articles, either on wiki or on another website, of any of the complaints made by Sir Viv Richards or anyone else who criticised the organisers. Anything else relevent would also be really appreciated. Many thanks--Kcricketer198 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the latter of your two requests, check the criticism section; the footnotes have links to articles (including one quoting Sir Viv as requested) about the massive backlash over the World Cup's organisation and general running. I'll look in to ticket pricing. Although I don't think Talk pages are really the place for this kind of thing, but what the hey. AllynJ 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that, i do appreciate it. Also I don't see the problem with using Talk pages for this kind of thing, how else am I going to get the information quickly if its hard to find online lol. It seems as though they have removed the ticket prices, for the obvious that the WC is now over. Anyway, thanks for your help--Kcricketer198 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms section is no good to me what-so-ever unfortunately because for the other people such as Holding(also the internal links on the criticisms part, e.g Holding, doesn't have any mention of his criticism of the WC), I would at least need a quote which i could reference for reliability of the source and to prove he did say that - because I have to give a reference to every source i use or its a fail without any of the work being marked. So i don't think wiki is any good to me on the criticisms part, i do have a couple of magazines with the criticisms in which i can use, so its that sort of thing i'm looking for on the net, i.e on newspaper websites you can find past articles ( but i have already searched these so i've got what i wanted there) .... once again i am really grateful for any help that is given to me.--Kcricketer198 20:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rating

[edit]

This article has been demoted from class=B to class=Start because (a) it is far too big and needs to be separated into at least two divisions per WP:SPINOUT; and (b) because it breaches WP:FLAG (although I have tried to rectify that). Flag icons cause download problems, particularly for readers without broadband and they add absolutely nothing of value to the article. BlackJack | talk page 08:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the rating to C-class, as the article is better than start class. Aaroncrick(Tassie talk) 05:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity

[edit]

How was Kensington Ovals capacity 32,000? When just over 20,000 attended the World Cup Final. Surely the final would of been close to capacity. Watching highlights of the game there doesn't appear to be 12,000 seats left. Aaroncrick(Tassie talk) 05:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland v Pakistan

[edit]

I think it's an interesting coincidence that Ireland beat Pakistan on March 17th, St. Patrick's Day, maybe that can be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.84.204 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[File:--112.135.234.114 (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Example.jpg]][reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2007 Cricket World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2007 ICC 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

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 22:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Cricket_World_Cup&oldid=1212399128"