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 C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-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 C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-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 C-class, Mid-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-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.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other editorial assistance.

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

— 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?

No, they probably have their own pages. In the same way that the England/Australia/India Tri-series at the moment isn't a warm-up match. Also, the warm-up matches are weird, they allow 15 players to play not 11 (so aren't officially ODIs), the matches you mention were proper ODIs with 11 player teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talkcontribs) 17:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

I think this is a good idea IF there are reliable sources for the attendance. If not, then we can't add them. For instance, on Carlton Mid Triangular Series in Australia in 2014–15, people keep adding attendance figures with no citations, and there doesn't seem to be any source online citing the attendance figures. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
And of course, by "people", you mean the person who originated this thread. And I think, because attendances are not traditionally recorded by cricket sources, we shouldn't include them either. – PeeJay 15:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
FWIW: NZL-SL 17,228 [3]; AUS-ENG 84,336 [4]; SAF-ZIM ???; IND-PAK 41,587 [5][6]; SCO-NZL 4,684[7]; BAN-AFG 10,972[8]; WI-IRE approx 6,500[9]; UAE-ZIM 2,643 (tbc)Jen galbraith (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015[edit]

All About ICC World Cup 2015 - Adarshpatro (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest putting in a short section on "Trans-Tasman Visa Arrangements" in the Preparations section[edit]

Hey, so since the article is locked, as an anon I can't edit it, but I was thinking that there should be a short section on the intended Trans-Tasman Visa Arrangements based on the information that can be found at the following sources:,,,

In essence the arrangement is for New Zealand immigration authorities to recognize Australian visas for the period of time around the World Cup. This is a much simpler solution than the joint visa that was being proposed by some stakeholders (e.g. (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea, as long as it's not too long (no more than 3-4 lines). Would probably put it in the Preparations section under a subheading of something like "Visas" or "Dual-Visas". Joseph2302 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Green tickY I did this a week or so ago. Thank you for your contribution. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Rights in Sri Lanka[edit]

Can someone please update the broadcasting rights section? The Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation is now holding the rights to air the CWC terrestrially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Please provide a reliable source for this information. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015[edit]

Hi there,

I have noticed that when you click on some of the scorecards under the tab pool A, it gives you the wrong teams.

For example, New Zealand vs Afghanistan is coming up as Australia vs Sri Lanka. Please can you change this to New Zealand vs Afghanistan. Another one is when you click on the scorecard for Australia vs Sri Lanka, it is giving you Bangladesh vs England. Please can you change this to Australia vs Sri Lanka.

Thanks (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: In order for someone to make this change you will need to provide links to the proper destinations (or the match/scorecard number). Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Green tickY I found and corrected the links. Next time please can you provide links/citations with your requests. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Wickets before runs[edit]

This tournament is being played largely in Australia, where the custom is to put wickets before runs when displaying a team's total score. It has previously been agreed that for matches played in Australia, that same custom should be respected. I see the logic that since it's a global tournament we should go for the predominant style used globally, but that is not what was agreed at WT:CRIC. – PeeJay 11:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi PeeJay. Interesting. Can you link to the CRIC discussion or guideline? --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Here. – PeeJay 12:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I have seen a discussion about it, and the consensus was wicket/runs (e.g. 3/300) in matches in Australia. I've asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket if someone could link it to me, because I can't find it myself at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
WT:Cric says that "Team score format: Adopt the consensus style of writing in the host country of the tournament, i.e. 1/141 or one for 141 for matches in Australia, and 141/1 or 141 for one for most other countries. Use slashes when shortening scores." As the tournament is being held in Australia and New Zealand, it's unclear on which style should be used, as NZ use 140/1 and AUS use 1/140. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's go for the international format then (141/1), since it's more familiar to people from each cricket-playing country. AFAIK, Australia is the only one that uses the 1/141 format anyway. – PeeJay 12:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, I've added a comment at the top of the page, so hopefully people will abide by it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Good spot, User:Joseph2302. The NZ co-hosting is being massively overlooked. I think this is a good resolution. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the custom mentioned here is being followed. I am in USA and watching matches live stream by ESPN. The score on all matches, including ones played in Australia, show score run followed by wicket (e.g. 32-1). -(User:anitj1)

Don't worry, it's all good. We sorted the issue at WT:CRIC. – PeeJay 18:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Broadcaster in Europe (Except UK & Ireland)[edit]

Could someone please remove Eurosport/Eurosport2 from boradcaster list for Europe. They are not broadcasting it in Europe[10]. An E-mail asking them if they have the rights went unanswered. Also there is no official document available in public domain which provides any information about the broadcaster in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Please provide a reliable source stating that Eurosport are not broadcasting. [1] and [2] both cite Eurosport 2 as broadcasting some matches. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Joseph, please see the most reliable source possible, (which I have already referred to) i.e. Eurosport's own broadcast schedule!!! [3] You can check the events being covered in the monthly overview (Monat in German means month). There is no mention of any Cricket or ICC event for all the events available. The two sources you have mentioned are not official, and have no reliable source mentioned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done On further inspection, there doesn't actually seem to be a contract with Eurosport. And your source does clearly not display cricket, so I'm going to change it from Eurosport. Sorry for the confusion, I had problems reading your source, because the website redirected me to British Eurosport, which didn't help. Thank you for contributing. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Need a consensus on attendances[edit]


Order of teams in Pools A/B prior to start seems ... odd[edit]

Can't work out how current team orders were decided. After start of matches, points scored will determine ranking in pool, but surely atm team order should be based on alphabetical order, official ICC ODI rankings, last world cup rankings or some other objective measure?

As they currently stand, the pools are listed as follows (latest ICC rankings in parentheses after each team):

  Pool A: England (5), Australia (1), Sri Lanka (4), Bangladesh (9), New Zealand (6), Afghanistan (11), Scotland (13)
Pool B: South Africa (3), India (2), Pakistan (7), West Indies (8), Zimbabwe (10), Ireland (12), United Arab Emirates (14)

Alternate #1 (Current ICC ODI Ranking order):

  Pool A: Australia, Sri Lanka, England, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Scotland
Pool B: India, South Africa, Pakistan, West Indies, Zimbabwe, Ireland, United Arab Emirates

Alternate #2 (Alphabetical order):

  Pool A: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, England, New Zealand, Scotland, Sri Lanka
Pool B: India, Ireland, Pakistan, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, West Indies, Zimbabwe

Xpi6oid (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The order is the ranking of the teams on 31 December 2012 (as in the table in Qualification Table), which was used to decide the groups for the World Cup. According to Tiebreaker Criteria, it is technically correct, since the 7th tiebreaker is original team ranking, and none of the first 6 tiebreakers can be applied.
In reality, I don't think it's a real issue, as they'll change in 2-3 days anyway. So, I would say keep as it is. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2015[edit]

Eurosport is not broadcasting any matches of the Cricket world cup 2015. See Eurosport's own broadcast schedule!!! [4] You can check the events being covered in the monthly overview (Monat in German means month). There is no mention of any Cricket or ICC event for all the events available. The websites claiming that Eurosport will broadcast in Europe (except UK & Ireland) are neither official, nor cite any official source. The name of Eurosport has popped up perhaps because the broadcasted the last T20 world cup. There is no known broadcaster for European mainland. Intensive web searches have yielded no definitive answer, just the speculations of Eurosport being the broadcaster, but as seen from the evidence referred above, they are not.

Please replace Eurosport and Eurosport2 with unknown in the broadcasters list. (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done On further inspection, there doesn't actually seem to be a contract with Eurosport. And your source does clearly not display cricket, so I'm going to change it from Eurosport. Sorry for the confusion, I had problems reading your source, because the website redirected me to British Eurosport, which didn't help. Thank you for contributing. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneDavey2010Talk 23:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Match officials[edit]

Request to create an article section to list the match officials. The names of the officials are available at Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress As per 2011 Umpires, I'm going to add a small section about the umpires, and then create a main article about it, in the style of 2011 Cricket World Cup officials. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress Added the section on 2015 Cricket World Cup article, in the process of creating the main article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Thank you for noticing the gap in information. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Opening Ceremony[edit]

The opening ceremonies today both in Australia and New Zealand are making some murmuring in the media and among the fans. Should we mention briefly about it and which artists performed there in the main article with a sub-heading Opening Ceremony? It is also being streamed live both on TV and online. Itz arka (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As per 2011 Opening ceremony, I think we should add a couple of lines about it to the main article, and create a new article about it, in the style of 2011 Cricket World Cup opening ceremony. I'm working on the Umpires bit at the moment, so would you, or someone else, be able to do it, please? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ohh thanks a lot Joseph2302. That's a good idea. Will start gathering information on it in the weekend when I'm free and make a new full article on it for sure :) Itz arka (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302, I have created the 2015 Cricket World Cup opening ceremony article. But I don't have the full knowledge about the part of it which took place in Melbourne. So the article presently kind of looks like a stub. Can you please attach the template on the article to ask viewers to help develop it by contributing more? If it is really a stub, then please also attach the stub template. Arka 92 11:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Rest of it looks good. I added tags saying "This article is under construction, please help in its expansion", and that the relevant section was empty. I assume this was what you wanted? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes exactly what I wanted. Thanks a lot :) Arka 92 14:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015[edit]

Web streaming in Europe (except UK & Ireland) is available on Source: [5] You can click on Know More for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 Web Only Pass, there the territories where stream is available are listed under section Territories.

The Territories listed are: Åland Islands, Albania, American Samoa, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, China, Cook Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Fiji, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Georgia, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Guam, Guernsey, Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, Isle of Man, Italy, Jersey, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Norway, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tokelau, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna Islands

Starsports FAQs: [6] Starsports Live Pro FAQs: [7]

Please add [8]' to the web streaming column in broadcasters list for Europe (Except UK & Ireland), China, Fiji (existing rows in the table).

With this list it seems that most other territories which aren't listed already will have web streaming via Maybe you can also add another row as Others and put the link there as well for web streaming. (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done I added Star Sports for Europe (except UK & Ireland), China and Fiji. I wasn't sure where to put all the other countries, someone else feel free to add them. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015[edit]

in pakistan championship 1992 link is not available. its link is below:

Ahmadasjad (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Ahmad Asjad

Yes check.svg Done Fixed, thank you for noticing. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Participants map[edit]

Couple of slight issues with the map;

  • Germany appears as sea.
  • Wales isn't shaded in; they should be dark green. Same as Ireland covers Northern Ireland as well, England (in this case) includes Wales; it's the England & Wales Cricket Board... - Cheers, Burwellian (Talk) 03:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above, but have no idea how to change it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2015[edit]

Ghimire111 (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done No request specified. Please state your request in the form "change X to Y" or "add Z between P and Q", and provide a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

End of Australia/England Game[edit]

So, I was thinking of adding an extra bullet point to the Australia/England game notes, about how the last wicket was incorrect. I believe it's notable since it's rare that the ICC admits umpires made a mistake, or need to clarify laws, as happened here. Source: ICC admits umpiring error I believe that stating the facts behind it would also be NPOV. My questions therefore are: (1). Do people agree it's a notable enough event? (2). Would adding this be considered NPOV? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think so. We generally include debuts, etc. in the bullet points, and this seems to have as much significance as those. In fact, we included the hat trick, even though "it was a hat-trick of about as much relevance as the one Shane Warne's son Jackson took in school cricket last week." ICC making a statement about an umpire's mistake is, as the article says, an unusual step. StAnselm (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully more prose can be added here (compare with the 2011 article). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Quarter finals[edit]

The Quarter Finals section mistakenly has A1 v B4 for 18 March. In fact if Sri Lanka qualifies they will be allocated this match date and venue whether or not they finish as A1. Similar qualifications apply for the other 3 dates. I will change the page according the ICC rules. Alan Davidson (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Point table template[edit]

Can anyone help me out about how to edit the point table templates of both Pool A and Pool B? Itz arka (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Itz arka: You can edit here : Template:2015 Cricket World Cup Group A and Template:2015 Cricket World Cup Group B.--Vin09 (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks man :) Itz arka (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Match Times[edit]

The matches in the article all include a start time. Yet, no indication is made in which time zone they are indicated. Are they in UTC, or are they in local time (which would be different for matches played in e.g. Perth, Adelaide, Sydney and Wellington). Bearing in mind that this tournament is spread over four five different time zones, shouldn't we indicate the time zones used in the match lists? Tvx1 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice eye! I totally skipped over the timings. Well, the timings mentioned are mostly 14:00 (2:00 PM) in Local time of Australia and New Zealand, where the match is being played. Proper timings are mentioned here according to Indian Standard Time (IST) first and then GMT. If any help is needed, this page can be referred. Kashish Arora (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
When I did the splitting of articles (see below, all the times got moved to 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A/2015 Cricket World Cup Pool B articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Change in Points table templates[edit]

The templates under 'Pool A' and 'Pool B' section can be improved by highlighting or by formatting in bold, the first four teams that will qualify for the Knockout stage, leaving three teams below. This will improve the quality of the template and make it more efficient for readers. I don't know how to edit/whether I can edit a template, so it is a request, if anyone can change it, please consider this request. Kashish Arora (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Colours/bolding should only be added once qualification is confirmed. Otherwise it would appear as though qualification has been achieved prematurely. – PeeJay 13:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, giving a bold would be inconvenient or whatever we say, but highlighting is better, as many reliable websites show first four as highlighted rows. Inform me if an example is needed. Kashish Arora (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
As PeeJay2K3 said, colours only, if advancing/eliminating is confirmed, as in every other case in en.WP.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


@Mjefm: you can add it on List_of_Cricket_World_Cup_centuries page.--Vin09 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am adding the link of List_of_Cricket_World_Cup_centuries to See Also section of this page for convenience. Kashish Arora (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Match reports[edit]

Anyone fancy writing up brief match reports for each group game as they finish? I've started one for West Indies vs Ireland to get things going. The 2011 group articles had the same format, albeit they did tale off after the first half of the tournament! Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't want to be difficult, but isn't this WP:OR? For instance, saying that WI were "reduced" to such-and-such a score. It's not that I don't agree (and as an Ireland cricket fan, I'm overjoyed by the result), but I'd hate for you to put in heaps of work only to be reverted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC).
It's not OR if it's written objectively and sourced properly. – PeeJay 13:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I was building on existing summaries in articles (example). Maybe "reduced" isn't the best choice of words, but feel free to edit and change it. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Qualification Map[edit]

Is it just my browser (or my eyes) playing tricks, or is there a large lake where Germany should be on the map of qualifying countries? Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

Yes, I see it too. Both home (Firefox) and work (IE). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed, in a sense, although someone with knowledge of how to make SVG maps should ideally convert it from a PNG to an SVG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015[edit]

Can I add attendance of various matches in the 'Group Stage' section of the page? I see that no one has entered the attendance in these section, that would be quite interesting as well as informative if we get those stats on the board. DanielWarne (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This topic is under extensive discussion at WT:CRIC. I would advise against adding attendances at all until the discussion is decided one way or another. – PeeJay 15:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to SPLIT articles, with information being transferred from 2015 Cricket World Cup to 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A and 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool B. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I propose that 2015 Cricket World Cup Group A and 2015 Cricket World Cup Group B be merged into 2015 Cricket World Cup. There is very little additional detail in the Group A and Group B articles, and there is some additional detail in this article that cannot be found in the Group A and Group B articles. For example, for the 14 February game between Australia and England, information about the final dismissal is found in this article, and not in the Group A article.

In the unlikely event that substantial additional detail is written about matches (in the Group A and Group B articles), I do not see a need for this to be in a separate article to this one. Gfcvoice (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

They were created based on other world cup pages.--Vin09 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation Vin09. However you have not addressed my concerns above. Gfcvoice (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
They just need expanding, that's all. They're supposed to be there for proper match reports to be written about each match, but that's currently not happening. If it doesn't happen soon, you'll have my support for merging. – PeeJay 07:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Per PeeJay. I started one or two off, hoping that would get the ball running. Plenty of things to report, but no-one is padding them out. Support merge if nothing has changed in the next 7 days. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
If nothing new or different data are available there than those in the main article, then I don't really find a suitable reason for the existence of those separate articles. So if the data are the same, then merge, but if users can add anything extra which can't be stated in detail in the main article, then may not merge. Arka 92 07:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
IMO, the group stage pages are worse than the main article, since all the notes have been added without citations there (whereas they save citations here). Unless someone does a proper write-up of the game with appropriate sourcing, then I would support merging them.
Support The data whatever to be added , can be added in the main article. No need of separate article. PK talk 16:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes the page should be merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmay Tarun (talkcontribs) 15:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the main article should be trimmed by keeping only the league table and pages for each group should have the match by match details. Main article is too lengthy now, - hari 12:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbkrishnan (talkcontribs)
I agree with Hbkrishnan, only the key info should be in the main page, as in 2011 Cricket World Cup. I suggest something similar to the format below (which is similar to 2011) for the main page, with everything else being added to the Pool A/Pool B page. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
14 February
New Zealand 
331/6 (50 overs)
 Sri Lanka
233 (46.1 overs)
New Zealand won by 98 runs
Hagley Oval, Christchurch

14 February (D/N)
342/9 (50 overs)
231 (41.5 overs)
Australia won by 111 runs
Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne

I think that all the notes etc. are notable, but there's too many of them for each match, and so they're taking up too much space on the main article. So I would like to keep Pool A/B articles and add all the notes (+a brief summary of each game maybe) to that page instead. This seems to be how it is done with other sports too, e.g. 2014 FIFA World Cup, 2011 Rugby World Cup. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable suggestion to me. – PeeJay 11:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Same, keep the sub articles. Bogger (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
So now it's a reverse merge?! Anyone going to be bold and split it out? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll do it some point today, am working on a different article at the moment. Also, I'll probably wait until the current match has been fully updated, to avoid edit conflicts. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I have split the main article as suggested. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As it stands now, I think they should not be merged as Joseph2302 has done a very good job to separate the notable points in the separate articles. Good job. Can you remove the template for the merger proposal from the top the respective articles? Arka 92 13:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm removed the mergal proposal template, and am closing this discussion (seeing as there haven't been any objections to my edits, only support). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nice work Joseph2302! Keep an eye on these pages now, as they may need page protection. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding Notes to the Matches[edit]

When adding notes to matches (i.e. things like "This was the West Indies' biggest margin of victory over Pakistan by runs in an ODI."), please add citations! I've had to add citations for quite a few of these notes, and without citations, these notes are original research. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Fairly easy to source all this, ESPN has extensive stats for each match, so the WP:BURDEN should be with whoever posts each fact to add a cite! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, please can people add as much source information as possible, as per WP:LR. Adding just the URL is bad practice, since it is prone to link rot. I tend to add URL, title, publisher, date (if specified) and access date. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That is the bare minimum you should be adding. I also add the author's name (using the 'first' and 'last' parameters) if it is specified in the cited article. – PeeJay 12:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Records Section[edit]

Khudiram Baitharu has added a records section to the article. In my opinion, it's unnecessary, since the information is with the relevant matches anyway, so it's duplicating information. Also, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK says that it shouldn't be done IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Record Section in ICC Cricket World Cup 2015[edit]


Chris Gayle of West Indies have scored a double century against zimbabwe, this in "Most Runs" section, 2 100's should be shown against his name.

Regards, Umair Khalid — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Umair. That's not how double-centuries are typically recorded in cricket statistics. The 100s column simply records the number of innings where the player scored 100 or more runs. By your logic, we would have to give him four 50s, when in fact the 50s column only records the number of innings where the player scored between 50 and 99 runs (inclusive). – PeeJay 11:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Do the Knockout Stages need a separate article?[edit]

Shagadelicbasil23 asked about this on my talkpage.

As we moved content to the Pool A and Pool B pages to avoid making this article too long, should we also have a separate article for the Knockout stages Knockout Stage, for the same reason? I think Yes: 2011 Cricket World Cup had it, and people are probably going to have more notes/longer game summaries for these matches. So this would once again avoid the problem of this article becoming too long. It's only 7 matches, but that will still be about 50 fewer lines of writing on the main page. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there needs to be an article on the knockout stage, but I must insist that it be called 2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage, rather than 2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stages, since it is one stage made up of three rounds, not multiple stages. – PeeJay 00:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Yes for a separate article for the knockout stages for the same reasons as Joseph2302. Gfcvoice (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - 2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage was created in July 2014 and redirected to this article (2015 Cricket World Cup) in August 2014. Gfcvoice (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the seperate page for 2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage. Shagadelicbasil23

Have New Zealand actually Qualified?[edit]

I cannot find a source saying NZ have qualified for the quarter-finals, yet the tenplate table says they've qualified. I know there's some confusing Maths about it, but I don't think it's guaranteed is it? BBC Sport says they still need 1 win from their remaining 2 games. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

1 win is obviously wrong because 1 point will do which means a no result is enough. Then the remaining games in which other teams take away the points from each other is the key for NZ's qualification. That are espec. England's games. England have to win all their matches to overtake NZ, but that means Ban loses one, so they can not overtake NZ. It's the same with Afghanistan, which play England and Australia. It's impossible that England and Bangladesh OR that Afghanistan and Australia overtake New Zealand. So, New Zealand is qualified.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a reference at well, to add to Pool A page. Clearly people on here are just more intelligent than the BBC. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sri Lanka has not Qualified (yet).[edit]

I will reverse the Sri Lanka entries that shows it qualifying at this stage. Only when it is mathematically certain should the entry be made. Here is one possibility. Sri Lanka loses to both Australia and Scotland. Australia beats Afghanistan. Bangladesh beats Scotland and New Zealand; and England wins its last 2 games. The table would be: NZ at least 8; Australia and Bangladesh on 7, and Sri Lanka and England on 6, so one of those last two would be out on the NRR. Please do not make a change until it is certain. Alan Davidson (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I made the change to the points table. Gfcvoice (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"...and England wins its last 2 games..." Haha, oh my sides! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
We're talking math. possibilities, not personal opinions.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
England isn't even a factor here. If 3 teams overtake Sri Lanka, that is enough.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed - that is just one possibility, there are others. Alan Davidson (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


I agree that the decision in the Australia - England game was controversial. Was the decision in the in the India - Pakistan game really a controversy? A decision was given, MS Dhoni asked for a review, and the decision was overturned. That's not really controversial. Or is the "controversy" the fact that MS Dhoni used a review system he doesn't support?

In any case, if this entry stays in the article, you should not start a sentence with "But" (which has been done twice). "But" should be used to join two sentences - and the comma after the "but" is redundant. Neb-Maat-Re (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's really notable, IMO it sounds like an anti-DRS person is trying to make an issue out of nothing. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)