Talk:Cricket World Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleCricket World Cup is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 17, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 13, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 16, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 22, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
November 19, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 7, 2012, June 7, 2015, and June 7, 2021.
Current status: Former featured article

Attendance[edit]

Just checking, but the 2015 Rugby World Cup and the 2017 World Baseball Classic both had higher total attendance figures than the 2015 Cricket World Cup. The mention that the Cricket World Cup was the third highest in attendance after the FIFA World Cup and the Summer Olympics was not cited.Barney Hill (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2019[edit]

Please update the table of the world champions. Fury Anish2003 (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Given the flurry of activity, I'm assuming it has been. Otherwise, it's not clear what you want. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2019[edit]

Please replace "Twenty nations have qualified for the Cricket World Cup at least once. Seven teams have competed in every tournament, five of which have won the title." with "Twenty nations have qualified for the Cricket World Cup at least once. Seven teams have competed in every tournament, six of which have won the title." beacuse New Zealand also won the title in 2019. yash.. 04:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Willbb234 (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2019[edit]

At World Cup Results/History it says 2019 World Cup was won by England over New Zealand due to more boundaries and pure luck. The "pure luck" part is unprofessional. 82.217.164.86 (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

removal of sourced content[edit]

I re-removed the content about the 2011 final allegedly being fixed. The claims were made 9 years after the event, received little coverage and an investigation into them was quickly closed as no evidence was ever provided : [1]. Spike 'em (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 February 2021[edit]

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus against the proposed moves (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– Consensus over WP:COMMONNAME appears to be "Cricket World Cup", as it is currently, but some editors are unconvinced and no formal, lengthy discussion has been had about this. A decisive result would help stop resisting editors from using non-conforming article names (like ICC Cricket World Cup Super League). Related move requests (February 2019 also suggesting "ICC Cricket World Cup", July 2020 suggesting "ICC Men's Cricket World Cup") all supported keeping "Cricket World Cup". As proposed by Lugnuts and Joseph2302 here. SocietyBox (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't tell you to propose it, don't list be as the nominator of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:TRAINWRECK. I would have suggested a discussion about Cricket World Cup article, but this is 45 years worth of World Cups. To support this, people would need to demonstrate that for every single individual event, ICC is the WP:COMMONNAME. Also, you've missed many "country x at the Cricket World Cup" articles. As SocietyBox is "posting this on my behalf" and I oppose it, that means it should be speedy closed as withdrawn by nominator, as SocietyBox has made me nominator in their nonsensical wisdom. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Joseph2302: I merely stated the idea came elsewhere. I'm the nominator and I want to hear the arguments from both sides. I am, in no way, suggesting you endorse the move. Apologies if it sounded like I was. You've voted anyway so there's no misunderstanding. The discussion can continue. SocietyBox (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unnecessary bloat. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @W. P. Uzer: I'm guessing you mean this move request is bloat. Or do you mean having "ICC" in the article names is bloat? SocietyBox (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I mean ICC in the article names is bloat. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For pages between 1975-1996 as they weren't called the ICC Cricket World Cup as they had a sponsor next to World Cup, the rest of them I am a little bit iffy for now and will probably stand back. HawkAussie (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no demonstration that commonname of Cricket World Cup has changed. Even if it has (or ever does) then each individual tournament would need to be assessed separately. Spike 'em (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Should this proposal fail, I think some of the related pages (such as History of the Cricket World Cup) should have their undiscussed page moves reverted, but the nominator here closed their own request early. Spike 'em (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view on the meta-question is that the same name for the competition should be used in all article titles, for consistency, and that that name should be the consise, universally applicable, and generally most common: "Cricket World Cup", without "ICC". W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FA concerns[edit]

Looking at this older FA as part of the ongoing FA sweeps. There is significant uncited text throughout. The Media coverage section seems to me to be heavily flawed. It lacks statistics for the most recent Cup, and it's unclear to me why tickets sold to attend in person would be in the media coverage section. The latter half of this section looks like it is just a conglomeration of random unrelated items such as mascots, a Google Doodle, and singling out a specific TV provider why this is significant when it is televised in over 200 countries. This needs some cleanup, or a featured article review may have to occur. Hog Farm Talk 16:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied the section (removing the Mascots) and split out attendance (using the football World Cup as an example). Both sections are now quite short and in definite need of some updates. Spike 'em (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding it difficult to find numbers the don't come from the ICC (or just repeat their figures). Some of the claimed viewership figures (e.g. the 2.2 Billion watching the 2011 final) are pre-game marketing numbers. The 2019 ICC releases also don't add up: this one claims 675 Million unique viewers of group stages, whilst this one claims 1.6 billion for the tournament. Spike 'em (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket so hopefully more people will come to help improve the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tournament Summary section has at least 1 table too many : the final "Teams in World Cup" effectively duplicates content in "Teams' performance" Spike 'em (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Likely going to be best to just remove the final "Teams in World Cup" table. Hog Farm Talk 14:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Work here seems to have stalled since Hog Farm’s post from April; I have added some cn tags that may help get things moving so the article won’t need to be submitted to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike 'em and Joseph2302: I am following up on these FA concerns, and I see that the citation needed templates are still in the article. Is anyone interested in fixing up the article, or should we prepare for this to go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With uncited sections still remaining, I am going to bring this to FAR in a couple weeks unless someone is willing to fix them up. Z1720 (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at similar sections in FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup and they seem to have the same issue of just quoting cumulative viewing figures from the sports governing body for a tournament in the past (2006 for football, 2007 for Rugby). The Rugby article does at least report that the figures are pretty meaningless! I did a search on google and can fid lots of lists of major sporting events, but can't find any from what I would consider a reliable source, or that states what figures it is using. This BBC article discusses it a bit but doesn't really lead to a solution!
I'll have a look into the other "citation needed" sections, the text they are next to doesn't seem to be too controversial / outlandish, so should hopefully find some for those with more ease! Spike 'em (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spike 'em: Were you able to look at the other cn concerns? Are you willing to work on this, or bring this to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've replaced all the {{cn}} with refs, in one case from the the linked main article. In the first case (first para of Qualification section), it only supports the second half of a sentence: if you think the first half needs a separate ref, then let me know and I will see what I can do. Also, I feel the "hosts knocked out in first round" statement could do with reworking, as the format of the tournament has changed every couple of editions, so the performances are not directly comparable. Spike 'em (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spike 'em: If a citation at the end of a sentence does not support everything preceding it, then another citation is needed to verify the remaining unverified info. I suggest finding another source, removing the information, or putting a citation needed tag half way through the sentence, after the information that is not verified. Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spike 'em: I see that most of your edits to the article are reversions. Are you still interested in addressing the uncited text, or should this go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protection suggestion[edit]

I suggest adding protection to prevent any acts of vandalism EsTuHabil (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TROPHY PICS I[edit]

wheres the trophy at? Pharaoh496 (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be a copyright free version of it. Iirc at least three copyright violations have been uploaded with the claim that a picture of the trophy on some grass was someone's "own work". I suspect we'd be better off not having one if this is the standard - unfortunately a major problem in some circles by the looks of it (I noticed the same problem with some photos of stadiums as well) Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thats a bit odd aint it? its been there for ages i reckon, cant someone upload a new picture properly? icc has made that wc pic public Pharaoh496 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Find us an open source version of the file then. Or creative commons. I don't think a fair use rationale will work here. You find the image and I'll check it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
search "cricket wc trophy" on google and click images. you will find the latest wc pic everywhere. that can be cropped and used, since its on icc's website also Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And one of them are open source and I can't find one that's suitable that's creative commons. Everything else you're finding through Google is copyright. It doesn't need to say that it is, but unless you can source an actual open source or creative commons image we can't use it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2527112 found'em Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion - it's an obvs crop of an obvs copyvio Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
damn it - someone really is dedicated for the cup to not be on wikipedia Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TROPHY PICS II[edit]

A proper trophy pic is needed for the page. This one isnt previewing Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wales as a host[edit]

Honest question here: if Wales does not have its own Cricket Board, with Welsh players and teams being affiliated to the English Board, why does it count as a host for 1983, 1999 and 2019? The way I see it, the mere fact that games were played in Wales is not enough; otherwise, the hosts for 2007 should be Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago. BLOGuil (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2023[edit]

I would like to change the highest culmulative scorer in Cricket World Cup, as it is now Virat Kohli (India), as stated here: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/virat-kohli-world-cup-runs-sachin-tendulkar-b2428275.html. Also, the total amount of runs in CWC of Virat Kohli stated there is outdated. It is actually: 2311 + 16 + 103 + 95 + 88 + 101 + 51 + 117 = 2882 runs. Scthecool (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've solved this by removing both parameters that deal with individual statistics from the infobox. As I understand it, these are designed for use on an individual edition's infobox, not for something that occurs as frequently as this Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023[edit]

AUSTRALIA IS THE WINNER 2409:40C4:139:6CF0:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Tournament records in Cricket World Cup page[edit]

If you had so much problem with no reference and you think it's not that a difficult job, why not do it yourself. Cric editor (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket_World_Cup&oldid=1217808598"