Talk:2011 Cricket World Cup/Archive 2

Top Priority: West Indies flag

In Sections 3.1 (List of qualified teams), 3.2 (Groups), 10.1 (Warm-up matches) and 10.2.2 (Group B) of this article, the West Indies flag is not shown. If you are a Wikipedia administrator, please unlock this article so I can make this change. If this is not possible, please make this change by yourself or, if you are not a Wikipedia administrator, to request a Wikipedia administrator to do the same. You can cut/copy and paste the flag from Section 8 for you convenience. Thank you for your cooperation.

What flag are referring to specifically? The flag in section eight is the flag of Dominica, a constituent country of the West Indies, and does not represent the West Indies team as a whole. Aside: anyone know if there is a reason the normal West Indies Cricket flag is not being used in the article? Is it a copyright/fair use issue (due to the fact that its a copyrighted trademark rather than a national flag)? Is it simply that it has yet to be inserted? Ravendrop 05:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an official West Indies flag/crest (as shown on the West Indies cricket team page), but it is indeed copyrighted. I have no idea whether using it here would be 'fair use'.ReadingOldBoy (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would not. Nev1 (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is Ireland's use "fair use" then ... or is there some permission that has been granted that I have missed. Ravendrop 06:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. I'm not european, so I do not know the logic behind the Ireland Flag shown. As far as I know, The Republc of Ireland has the orange-white-green flag. Does this flag represent the whole of Ireland, or something like that? TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 08:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish cricket team represents the whole Irish island, i.e. both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and thus doesn't use the tri-color flag of the Republic of Ireland. Its the same for them in rugby union and field hockey as well. Ravendrop 08:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just proposed a solution to the West Indies cricket flag issue here.Kwib (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I proposed a more pragmatic, but possibly controversial, solution. Bazonka (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG for the pre 1999 West Indies flag, which is in the public domain, has been created. The use of this would result in a flag icon that looks like this: . I think that, as per the points made here, this would be acceptable to use. From what I have read in relation to the proposal, there appears to be no objection to the use of the flag (only objections to use of the current flag); this is public domain, there appear to be no legal or copyright issues. Therefore, I propose that we should go ahead and use this.Kwib (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. We'll never get consensus to use the current legally questionable flag (even though there is practically zero risk), so this is the best alternative. Certainly better than nothing. Bazonka (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock this please

It's innings break on the Pakistan England game, and England stands at 273/10 (49.4). Either unlock this so people can keep it up to date, or update it a LOT faster.

Updated. Wikipedia is not a news website, it is an encyclopedia; if you want the latest score go to cricinfo or the BBC. Given the amount of vandalism this page receives while unprotected, it's not going to be unlocked any time soon. Nev1 (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a banner about this being a current event. Keep it current. A bunch of people on a power trip wanting to be the ones in charge of the article completely destroys the point of Wikipedia.

Power trip? You're completely missing the point that when this page is unlocked it's regularly subjected to vandalism. Since 16 December the article has been unprotected for a total of 14 days [1]. That's because there have been multiple periods when it was unprotected and had to be locked due to vandalism. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The game ended over an hour ago. This is an officially out of date encyclopedia for a 'current' event.

As you have stated, this is an encyclopedia. Not a news website. Kindly read WP:5P and WP:NOT for an explanation of what Wikipedia is and what it is not. If you need the scores, please go to Cricinfo. Regards, TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 17:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuh. The time you took to write that was 4 times the time it would have taken to bring the current article current. I would do the work myself and not waste my time here, but the article remains locked for no good reason. (I don't buy the vandalism catch-all argument.)

Kindly read the history of the page in question. Hope it will answer your questions about the amount of vandalism on the page. I would recommend you creating an account, so that you can edit semi protected pages like this. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 17:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trophy

What is the point of having a paragraph about the trophy, there is nothing unique about it this series and is the handed out every series. I think it should be removed.--Blackknight12 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think it would be reasonable to strip it back to one sentence and remove the subheadings. Nev1 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have included it under the heading prize money.--Blackknight12 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Changes

The Symbols and Media coverage sections seem very mush out of place in the article, I think they should be moved to the end after the mathes section as they are topics more about its promotion rather than the tournament itself.

Also as well as the article being as long as it is, I think it would be better if we hid the warm up matches, like below, as they are not as important as the actual matches themselves.--Blackknight12 (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matches

16 February 2011 (D/N)
Scorecard

India
360/5 (50 overs)

v

New Zealand
243 (43.1 overs)

India won by 117 runs
MA Chidambaram Stadium, Chepauk, Chennai

18 February 2011 (D/N)
Scorecard

England
273 (49.4 overs)

v

Pakistan
206 (46.1 overs)

England won by 67 runs
Fatullah Osmani Stadium, Fatullah

As the warm up matches are secondary to the main event I think collapsing them is fine. The symbols section is quite frankly poor; a photo of Tendulkar doesn't help understand the role of ambassador and is simply decorative, the information on "Stumpy" is bloated with irrelevance (what does it matter who unveiled it or whether he "is enthusiastic and is determined"?). I've had a go at combining that material with the media section [2]; as for the position, I'm not too fussed, but I have moved it to the end per your suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed the image of "Stumpy" on the ground of WP:NFC#8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"). It is not necessary to have an image to show that the mascot is an elephant. Nev1 (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a couple of changes but I think it should be ok concerning this.--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding the warmup matches doesnt look good to me. Either remove them completely or keep them the way they are.

Also I like Nev1's new unified Media section. But I think it should be included in the flow of the article. Maybe after the preparation section.ashwinikalantri ^talk 17:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do hide the warm up matches (or better yet get rid of them entirely). They have zero impact on the actual tournament and are like listing the number of laps ran and the exact song listened to by each runner before they do the 100 m dash. Ravendrop 06:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the details are already present in the here. We can do away with it.ashwinikalantri ^talk 16:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Format of the qualification section

I'm not really seeing the point of listing the qualified teams twice. I know they give slightly differing information, but couldn't they be combined? Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well one is the list of qualified teams, which should be included, and the other just shows the seed and groups they are placed into. The List of qualified teams section shows which teams have qualified, which Associations are represented and by how much as well as the rank of each team before the tournament, including the host countries.--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why not combine them? Nev1 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the seeds I dont think the groups section is even needed. The groups can be seen from the articles 2011 Cricket World Cup Group A etc.

Ok, hows that?--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serves no purpose. Multiple brackets really bad idea. Is it necessary to classify as per regional councils? I dont see the teams qualifying through them. The regional councils arent mentioned any where else. ashwinikalantri ^talk 19:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cricinfo vs wikinews

Before this descends into an edit war, what are the merits of using one site over another? Nev1 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why use an external source when a sister project can be used, and data available? ashwinikalantri ^talk 19:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought cricinfo was preferable for the same reason individual Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources. While dedicated editors may be working on wikinews to keep it accurate, it doesn't seem as accessible, comprehensive, or well-presented as cricinfo. Nev1 (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. But that would be like not linking to another WP article but the official website, just because it is more accurate.

If at all we need to link to an external source, it should be the official scorecard (cricket.yahoo.com). ashwinikalantri ^talk 19:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think using either of those two websites would be preferable to wikinews. Wikinews is based on those two sources, so it makes sense to cut out the middle man; in any case wikinews uses software that was not designed to cope with sports scorecards and it just isn't as well done as Cricinfo and cricket.yahoo.com. As for which of the two external sources to use, I'm not particularly fussed; I find Cricinfo easier to use and the links may be useful to a reader, although I can see that going straight to the horse's mouth in the form of the ICC's website is also desirable. CricketArchive is also worth considering of course, however I don't think it's as user friendly as either Cricinfo or cricket.yahoo.com. Nev1 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just about to raise this myself. Another Wiki is not a reliable source, and the source on WN ultimately comes from Cricinfo (or other RS). The warm-up matches have the scorecards to cricinfo, and all past Test/ODI series have CI as the scorecard source too. Would you ref a cricket biograpghy with another wiki language? Of course not. Lugnuts (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That completely misses the purpose of creating wikis! Wikinews is as non-reliable as wikipedia. That doesnt stop us from, does it? I think using sister sites should be encouraged. After all they are well sourced (mostly). If they are not available, then we should look at external sites. It fail to understand Lugnuts' point of inter-language linking. ashwinikalantri ^talk 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does stop us from using Wikipedia. If someone tried to use Wikipedia as a reliable source, whether someone on Wikipedia or writing an essay at university, they'd be encouraged to do otherwise. Using a site such as cricinfo or cricket.yahoo satisfies WP:RS whereas wikinews doesn't; it seems only sensible to use these external sites which have the benefits of being official, having more information, and being user friendly. Nev1 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree again. But I just found out how reliable wikinews is! Look at the process of publishing here. Unless the article is well sourced, well written, neutral, it doesnt get published. What is more important is it is required to list atleast 2 sources for the article. The user can at anytime check these sources (mostly CI or Yahoo)ashwinikalantri ^talk 16:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So cut out the wikinews middle man and go straight to the sites which undeniably satisfy WP:RS. Nev1 (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note, How about we create separate articles for the individual matches right here on Wikipedia? With scorecard and everything. After all its the encyclopaedia's job to hold info rather than sending you to other sources (CI, Yahoo, CricketArchives can all be references)? How does that sound?--ashwinikalantri ^talk 19:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having articles on individual matches would never fly. The notability guideline on sports matches makes it sounds like such articles will get deleted. Nev1 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well! guess we should delete this! And I think we can link the scorecard directly with the official ICC score site (Yahoo!)--ashwinikalantri ^talk 19:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venues

The purpose of the article is to concentrate on the event, as Blackknight12 has rightly pointed out on this page. Images of the cricket grounds dont serve any purpose. The complex table is difficult to read and gaudy. A simple list would be sufficient.ashwinikalantri ^talk 19:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - The photo of the stadium along with other details are found at the respective pages of the stadiums.ashwinikalantri ^talk 19:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody qualified for quarter finals

we seriously need to remove the green brackets until someone has 100% qualified for the quarter finals(look at the football/rugby articles) or ee it will create confusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.8.207 (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Agreed. Also changed the caption under the tables to read: The top 4 teams qualify for the Quarter Finals (qualified teams indicated in green); added hidden note on templates with green colour style format so no one has to go looking. Ravendrop 06:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

The group B table shows Ireland have played two games, but they've only played one. Is there a way to change this? Joldy (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the table. Nev1 (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current Holders

Main article and the side bar at top of the page does not mention who the current Cricket World Cup holders / Champions are. This is disrespectful to the current champions. This should be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.126.109 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about the *2011* Cricket World Cup. Anyone who wants to know who won the *previous* Cricket World Cup can follow one of many links, either to 2007 Cricket World Cup or to Cricket World Cup. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore has changed to Bengaluru

Hi all, Bangalore has been changed officially to Bengaluru, long long time back. Request to edit the page accordingly.

Not according to the Bangalore article. Bazonka (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a loopback!! You want to carry the mistake forward?!? http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-10-25-bangalore_x.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6107082.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parandhaamayyaoorbaglu (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those news reports date from 2006 and state that the city plans to change its name, but hasn't yet done so. In any case, the use of the city's name in this article should match the main Wikipedia article for it, which currently is Bangalore. I suggest you take this discussion up at Talk:Bangalore first. Bazonka (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Few Suggestions

This is a very well edited article. Since I can can only do basic editing right now, I suggest following to experienced editors. 1. There should be a section for "Records Made". 2. Picture of each team's gear/t-shirt should be given in Squads section. 3. Map of India in Venues section is showing disputed territory are part of India. This is against wikipedia's neutrality policy. It should be corrected. 4. Picture of Stumpy the mascot should be given under the heading Mascot. WikiHuda (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC) (Note: Moved to bottom, please place all new conversations at the bottom, otherwise they are likely not to be seen.)[reply]

1. Is a decent suggestion, though the topic is covered in depth at List of Cricket World Cup records, though a note on the 2011 Cricket World Cup statistics page of either a separate section at the bottom. Or with notes by the stat to reflect a World Cup Record is a good idea.

2. Can't, would violate fair use rules as those are all copyrihted. Would clutter up the page as well. Someone did #4 so might as well do this one too. And to avoid the clutter, you can use a thumbnail in a box with description. Clicking on the thumbnail should open the larger image containing all t-shirts. Or may be it should be done on 2011 Cricket World Cup squads. WikiHuda (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. This has been discussed elsewhere here with no consensus reached, and until such time consensus is reached there is no changing it.

4 Again can't because of fair use rights. If you want to see the picture go to the Stumpy page. Ravendrop 04:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the map of India, India includes kashmir.

Please change the map of India, India includes kashmir. Removing Kashmir is like removing our head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.93.36 (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current map shows territories administered by India, not territories claimed by India. Any change to this would be unnecessary POV pushing. Besides, this isn't the proper venue to discuss this. Go to the Kashmir page to reach consensus first. Ravendrop 06:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will also note that the borders of the disputed areas (Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh) are shown differently from the non-disputed borders. The map is NPOV. Bazonka (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The map used here shows portion of Kashmir valley and Aksai Chin in different shading because at present both ain't in India's administration, but why whole Arunachal Pradesh has been shown with special dotted boundaries?, i know its a disputed region between China and India; but India is the only controller of the region. Besides most of the maps on Wikipedia never shows Arunachal Pradesh lik this. Check these maps for example. Now tell me where is the policy of NPOV here?

Further: If this is the case that claim of China can't be neglected than in this scenario how about including claims of Taiwan too.

I need explanation for this type of biasing. If this is not the correct place than i'll raise this serious issue over WP India. Bill william compton^Talk 09:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The FIFA and Olympic maps both delimit the countries by lines of actual control - so Arunachal Pradesh is shown in India, and Kashmir is shared between India and Pakistan - this is the same approach as used on the map of India in this article. The China map shows both the territory controlled by, and claimed by China - clearly highlighting the latter. Obviously with your Indian POV it would be preferable to have all of Kashmir shown as part of India, but we have to be neutral here, so maps of controlled territory is the best approach. Showing where borders are disputed on these maps is not in any way biased - in fact quite the opposite at it shows that the map is arguably incorrect. Bazonka (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First don't relate this argument with my POV, you have no authority to judge me. Second i never said whole Kashmir should be shown in India only, i'm asking the same policy here as on other Wikipedia's articles to delimit these three nations as according to original, present boundary controls, means to not to show any kind of territory claims. I also included a map which shows Taiwan's territorial claims, if according to you showing boundaries which are disputed is the neutral and correct policy than why ain't you showing claims of Taiwan and many others like that in between India/China, India/Pakistan (like Sir Creek) and India/Bangladesh (like enclaves). My point is very clear either we've to show all the territorial claims or just to show real boundaries; which are in actually administration of any nation.Bill william compton^Talk 13:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for making assumptions. However, you are not taking into consideration the scale of maps - the FIFA and Olympic maps are at far too small a scale to adequately show every disputed border. The India map in this article is of much larger scale and so can more effectively include this level of detail (although not necessarily the smaller disputed areas like the Bangladsh enclaves). However, this article is about cricket, and so I think that this discussion should either get back on topic, or cease. Bazonka (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're missing something, if scale of the maps shown on Olympics and FIFA pages is so small that they can't show every detail of disputed borders than why region of Kashmir Valley and Aksai Chin are shown in Pakistan and China respectively? (which are even much smaller than Arunachal Pradesh for showing on a map of such a low scale), and how could you ask for ceasing this discussion; showing wrong map on such an international media is very offensive (specially which is directly concern with Indian sub-continent); i'm raising this issue here to develop a consensus for replacing this map. I need yours/everyones support for this. Bill william compton^Talk 18:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, this map issue has been raised innumerable times, most notably in Talk:India. Please go through the archives there. I think you may find an answer to your query. Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The map of India there is shown in full, with the claimed territories in a lighter green, so can we see the same happen here please?

group points table is inaccurate

I just noticed the group points table is inaccurate; West Indies do not have a point for Tie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.150.131 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of standings

Suggestion: it is easier to read if we put the matches below the group standings. Can someone make this change? It will also match the previous Cricket World Cup pages, which have the standings above the matches. 24.158.26.154 (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ravendrop 03:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohali

I have just undone this edit by Bill william compton (talk · contribs) changing the location of Mohali from Punjab to Chandigarh. According to the 2001 census S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) is in the state of Punjab. This may have since changed, but sources need to be presented to prove such an assertion. Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth shows the cricket ground as lying just inside Chandigarh, although I never quite trust Google Earth boundaries. It may actually be in Punjab. Bazonka (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Seoengine, 8 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} World cup 2011 Live Cricket Scores Links.

Seoengine (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We already have links to cricinfo, we don't need more. Are you proposng that the above site replace cricinfo? Ravendrop 06:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I concur that you don't need more EL for the same info; the Official link should be sufficient. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout stages

What happens if the game is abandoned or doesn't start due to rain? Is it rescheduled or is there another method of determining who progresses? Lugnuts (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the match is abandoned, the team that finished higher at the group stage will progress to the semi-finals. If its a tie, the teams will take part in a one-over per side eliminator to determine the winner. --- Managerarc ^talk 17:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter finals

The points table currently shows that Sri Lanka has qualified for the quarter finals but not India although they both have the same points. 84.97.180.163 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the number of points that qualifies a team for the quarters, but rather a guarantee that they will finish in the top no matter what happens for the rest of the games. Sri Lank is qualified, because Canada, Zimbabwe and Kenya cannot finish ahead of them (and hence Sri Lank can't finish lower than 4th), while India isn't because all but Ireland and Netherlands can still finish ahead of India, and thus India can still finish in 5th place and out of the quarter finals. Ravendrop 23:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]