Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cricket (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Australia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 2015 Cricket World Cup is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.

Location of the final[edit]

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

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

10 teams only[edit]

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

the official logo of 2015 Cricket World Cup is here

File:Image/jpg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBhQPDw8PDw8PDw8PDxURFRUXDw8XFRcUFBAWFhYVFxcXHigfFx8jGhUXHy8gJCcpLC04FSAxNTAqNSYrLCkBCQoKDgwOGg8PGjUkHyUyLC8wMTUtLDUqMi8sLSwsK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunpc8 (talkcontribs) 11:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Requested move[edit]

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

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

2015 ICC Cricket World Cup2015 Cricket World Cup – Needs to be moved back to the Common name. ashwinikalantri talk 03:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Support per common name. --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's an official name and what's a problem in naming like this, we also have 2010 FIFA World Cup and other football world cup articles. — Bill william comptonTalk 11:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    The relevant document to read is WP:COMMONNAME. The reason it's called "FIFA World Cup" is mostly one of WP:DISAMBIGUATION - without the word "FIFA", you wouldn't know which World Cup is being discussed. There is, thankfully, only one Cricket World Cup, mostly because they were sensible when naming the T20 version. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Dweller. Jenks24 (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support--Karyasuman (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's Infact the Full Official Name of the Tournament as everyone can see from the Photo Itself and by going to the ICC's Official Website. Just by changing the Names of the Previous articles and by Putting up useless Reasons won't Help. What's Right will be done Right no matter how hard one tries to change it. I request that this Article be Protected as per it's Current Name Immediately to as Much Time Period as Possible. Thank You KS700 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
KS700, you have been asked to read the WP title naming policy, multiple times. Looks like you dont have time for that. I see that you are new here at WP. So let me make it clear for you. Its WP policy to use common names (Bill Clinton not William Jefferson Clinton). WP, being so widely edited has a set of policies, which you need to follow. I suggest you read them before making more edits. ashwinikalantri talk 00:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
AshwiniKalantri , I have Read the Whole WP title naming policy. I see you are Right over here on the Common Naming Policy which states All these things. But as u also see that the word ICC Cricket World Cup is as Much Common and Infact even more Popular then the word Cricket World Cup itself. As you see the Full Official Name of the Tournament is ICC Cricket World Cup and not Cricket World Cup as ICC is the Main Organizer/Administrator of the Tournament just like in FIFA where all the world cups have been named as starting with their Respective year with FIFA World Cup. For Eg. Like starting from the First 1930 FIFA World Cup, 1974 FIFA World Cup, etc. to the Most Recently held 2010 FIFA World Cup. I have Full Legitimate Evidences to Prove this as you can yourself see on the ICC's Official Website (which is but some users just want to ignore it. I therefore kindly Request you to do what You, I and almost Everyone agrees that what the Proper Name should Be. I hope your coordination will be Helpful and Appreciated. Thank You KS700 (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
KS700, you still dont get the difference between common name and official name. Common name is something that we use regularly. You dont see people referring the World Cup as ICC Cricket World Cup, do you? The same was as Bangalore is the name of the article not Bengaluru although that is the official name. It depends on the usage.
You dont need to prove anything here. We all know that ICC Cricket World Cup is the Official name. But here at WP, there is a policy to use names that prople can more easily relate to and are more commonly used in day-to-day life. Hope that helps. I think you will find people disagreeing with you even at WT:CRIC. I think its time you drop it. ashwinikalantri talk 05:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The venues are too big![edit]

Not the grounds themselves, but our section on them.

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

Plenty of editing of the article, but nobody looks here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Does nobody else care? HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Dude, chill out. I've made the whole thing smaller, but it really was something you could have easily done yourself. – PeeJay 21:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't understand the need for the personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It's a pretty complex table - I don't think it's that simple. Hack (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not complex at all. And it wasn't really a personal attack, you just didn't need to post three times in two days just to get a reply. If no one had seen the message the first time, what made you think that posting two more times would make it more likely for them to see it? – PeeJay 10:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's twice you've told me that I'm incompetent. Thank you. It's good editing to pay as much attention to an article's Talk page as to the article itself. There were lots of changes happening to the article, and obviously nobody looking here. I use a Watchlist. It alerts me equally to edits to the Talk and to articles. Do you use a Watchlist? I guess you must, since you're such an expert here. So why the fuck didn't you respond? I'm sort of used to this sort of incompetence. It happens a lot with fans excited about sporting events. But it's bad editing. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
No one is calling anyone else incompetent, so please don't put words in my mouth. If you think people are likely to respond to a post on a page about an event that is still two years away after only one day, you clearly haven't been here very long. Perhaps the only thing I am accusing you of is naivete. There was nothing wrong with the page on my screen, and probably not on the screens of many others who saw your post, so perhaps people thought you were just griping over nothing; perhaps going overboard and calling things "unacceptable" was a step too far on your part. Anyway, enough of this now; I've fixed your problem with the article. Your problem with other people's editing practices, however, I cannot fix, so I suggest we close this discussion here. – PeeJay 12:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You haven't even read my original post properly, or you wouldn't have written that post that way. Now, piss off like a good boy, and go and find some manners and some brains. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Now now, no need to resort to such foul language. I suggest you think before you post next time. Anyway, if you would care to read my post properly, you would see that I was implying that your issue with the article was one that only affected a minority of viewers and was therefore not worth dealing with as urgently as you believed. Lest you think otherwise, I ought to remind you that the world does not revolve around you or how Wikipedia articles appear on your laptop (which I suggest might be a little out of date if it can't handle screen resolutions wider than 1024 pixels). – PeeJay 22:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh FFS, I'm clearly dealing with an arrogant prick here. You STILL haven't read my original post properly. Or you're incompetent. Or just plain rude. And you DON'T touch others' posts here. THAT'S against policy. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You're digging a pretty big hole for yourself with all this aggressive language. And I don't think there was much of your original post that needed reading: the venues section used to be too wide for your screen, you threw a tantrum until some kind person came along to fix it for you. Get over yourself. – PeeJay 08:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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

First, here's a quick overview:

18 March (D/N)
Quarter-final 1 - Sydney

19 March (D/N)
Quarter-final 2 - Melbourne

20 March (D/N)
Quarter-final 3 - Adelaide

21 March (D/N)
Quarter-final 4 - Wellington
  • If one or both host countries qualify for the quarter-finals, Australia will play in the game on 20 March in Adelaide, and New Zealand will play on 21 March in Wellington.[1] The teams participating in quarter-finals 1 and 2 are therefore also subject to change, if Australia or New Zealand finish 1st or 2nd in Pool A.
24 March (D/N)
Winners of quarter-final 1
Winners of quarter-final 4
Semi-final 1 - Auckland

26 March (D/N)
Winners of quarter-final 2
Winners of quarter-final 3
Semi-final 2 - Sydney
  • If Australia qualifies for a semi-final, that game will be played on 26 March in Sydney. If New Zealand qualifies, its semi-final will be played on 24 March in Auckland. In the event of Australia and New Zealand playing against each other, the team that finished higher in Pool A will have home advantage for the match.[1][2]

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

But there are still some points not fully explained yet:

  • As far as I can tell, it's misleading to talk about a "change of venue" or "change of date" – surely the knockout matches will be played at those venues on those days? It'd be hard logistically to change those. It's just the teams that might change.
  • Let's say Australia qualified in 1st place in Pool A. Would the rearranged Australia quarter-final in Adelaide simply swap, with the "A3 v B2" quarter-final being played at Sydney?
  • There's no chance of an Australia v New Zealand quarter-final, as Pool A teams will be kept apart in that round.
  • The ICC acknowledges the possibility of an Australia v New Zealand semi-final. Therefore, is it possible that the numbering of the quarter-finals will be in a different nominal order? Otherwise, Australia (supposedly "quarter-final 3") couldn't play against NZ ("quarter-final 4" in Wellington) in a semi-final. Could Australia officially play in "quarter-final 1" even though it was played third? (in Adelaide)

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

Associates Warm Up Tours[edit]

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

Mentioning the attendances[edit]

Like the football articles and many cricket articles like Big Bash League and some others, I think we should mention the attendance of every match in the small scorecard of every match at the region below the venue as it is mentioned in Wikipedia. Itz arka (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b "Fixtures - Cricket World Cup 2015". ICC. Retrieved 3 March 2014. 
  2. ^ "2015 Cricket World Cup pools and venues revealed". Herald Sun. July 30, 2013. Retrieved 3 March 2014.