Talk:Cricket World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cricket (Rated FA-class, High-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Featured article Cricket World Cup is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2007.


Performance of Team table -MODIFY PLEASE[edit]

Performance of team table should be modified or redesigned to better depict the performance of teams during the world cup. For instance like the table in Fifa world cup article under "teams reaching top 4" --> LINK: It is the standard for all other competitions on wikipedia and is much easier to comprehend. I don't see why cricket world cup has a different summary table (The color graphic on historical performance is difficult to comprehend). The current table does tell me that Australia has won the world cup 4 times but it doesn't show me the fact that it has also been the runner up 2 times Or if it has ever failed to proceed ahead of semi finals.This information is much more meaningful than just best results Or First/last appearance in performance table when its already present above in history. So for eg columns like:

Teams| Titles |Runners up |Semi Finalists |Total Finish in top four ... and statistics then maybe.

Updates during WC 2007[edit]

I have updated Tendulkars run-record (added 7 from todays game 17/3), Pontings record for most "tons" and Hollands win-lose results. Anyone faults found in my updates? RGDS Alexmcfire

"Last appearance"[edit]

I'd like to suggest that the table column "last pappearance" be changed to "latest appearance". "Last" implies that the tournament is now defunct - most of these countries will no doubt be part of future tournaments. I would have made the change myself, but - with an active page like this - I wasn't quite bold enough. Grutness...wha? 20:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Statistics table[edit]

I'm not sure that "Record Streak" is a column which conveys much meaning on this table. AUS, ENG, IND, NZL, PAK, SLK and WIN will never not appear at a World Cup unless there is a revolutionary overhaul of international cricket. Darcyj 22:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The "Best streak" is redundant. Any objection to me removing it from the table? --Dave. 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Further, I am considering extending the table to the right to add each team's P-W-L record for Semi-Finals and Finals (combined), to highlight those teams which have dominated the tournaments. Darcyj 22:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)kenya vs aus and the next was new zealand vs india

I don't think thuis would be worthwhile. Too few matches to make the stats significant, and appearances in the finals are already documented anyway. --Dave. 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

External link[edit]

Someone added to the article. Isn't very good at the momemt, but looks promising. Maybe added back if it gets better. Tintin (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of West Indies 2007[edit]

Firstly, the section is poorly written, imcomprehensible for readers with little knowledge of cricket. Secondly, I'm looking to the long term and trying to make this a FAs. I'm basing it on FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup (Both FAs), which don't have a section on either their recent or upcoming tournaments. GizzaChat © 10:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

New Zeland and 1979 semi finals[edit]

As far as my know lege is concerned the semi finalists of the 1979 WC were Pakistan India England West Indies

In my humble opinion New ZeAland did nt qualify for the 1979 semifinal (as was mentioned in the article)

correct me if I am wrong)

Hussain 20:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Firstly, misspelling New Zealand twice above is very poor form, especially when the correct spelling is all over the main article. Secondly, you are wrong - England played New Zealand in a semi-final of that tournament at Old Trafford on June 20, 1979. Darcyj 09:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


India eagerly proposed they they should hold the second Cricket World Cup.

What is the source for this ? I am curious because I read a report from 1980 which tells that India wanted to host the 1983 World Cup (shall provide the exact details if anyone is interested). Tintin (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This apparently came from here : "When the I.C.C. met in London towards the end of June member countries were invited to submit ideas for the next World Cup. India had already said that they were keen to act as hosts, but several members thought it was hard to beat England as the venue." But they are talking about meeting at the end of the 1979 world cup and India's interest in hosting the 1983 World Cup, not 1979. Tintin (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1992 tournament held by Australia and New Zealand brought many changes to the game such as coloured clothing, white balls, day/night matches and fielding restrictions.

An online friend who checked Narottam Puri's book about the Reliance Cup tells me that the book clearly mentions that 15-overs restrictions were in place in the world cup, though 4 players (and not two) could remain outside the 30-yard circle.

Cricinfo's review of 1992 World Cup says :

"The fielding circle rules were refined, allowing only two men outside the ring in the first 15 overs. After that, it was as before: a minimum of four inside the circle. Result: the birth of the pinch-hitter. Ian Botham did the job for England, with mixed results".

So it looks like fielding restrictions were not new, only modifications but the line in the article seems to imply otherwise. Tintin (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

he number of places decided from the ICC Trophy have constantly changed since its inception. It has depended on the number of teams participating in the tournament as well as the Test nations at the time.

These days it is "ODI nations" though replacing "Test nations" to something to that effect will ruin the sentence. Tintin (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"The first cricket Test match was played in 1877 between Australia and England" --- This is wrong, the first official match played was between Canada and USA, with Canada winning

GA Nomination[edit]

This is not an official review. I feel the introduction is a bit rambling and would also be difficult for a non-cricket person to come to grips with. I would be inclined to put the section Hosts under the heading Format, and to put the main sections in the order Format, History, Results. There needs to be a bare-bones explanation of the distinction between limited-overs and full-format cricket, and at present this is buried in the subsection Prior to the Cricket World Cup.

So, speaking as a cricket person, I am not 100% happy with the article, although there are no glaring factual errors or POV issues. I think it is weak in structure and prose, and would be inclined to fail it. Darcyj 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The structure of the article is based on FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup, both of which are Featured Articles. GizzaChat © 07:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that GA criteria are not that tough on "prose". An article can be a GA just for having it mostly all there in the right places, with a decent prose. Although I would like an outside opinion, I see this article as fitting that criteria currently. Ansell 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixes to be made[edit]

I have read through this article, and found a couple things incorrect meaning I am unable to yet promote this article to GA status. The trophy photo firstly is not properly tagged and will be deleted tomorrow if this is not fixed. Also in the summary of the World Cups section, a link to the scorecards would be good for the finals, even if the details to seperate world cup pages are there. Also you might not want to go up to the 2019 World Cup on that table, as these articles will more than likely get deleted in the near future. I have placed this article on hold for GA status, which means you have seven days to make these changes. Thankyou, Jasrocks (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

GA status[edit]

Congratulations, this article is now a Good Article of Wikipedia. Small summaries would be good for the world cups to help to bring to FA status, but do not go into detail when you write them. Well done! Jasrocks (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

pictures & pov issue[edit]

I think the paragraph about subcontinent's financial strength effecting the "rotation system" is people's point of view. Many might agree with it but it's still point of view none the less. And as for removing the two pictures is because there's a picture of the Prudential world cup and because it was the 1st there's no need for another picture of Prudential cup, because if you're going to do that why not add a picture for every world cup. And the other with Imran is because the australian picture shows the current trophy which represents the present, where as the imran represents neither the start of the section 1987 or does it reprsent the present it represents the '92 world cup.--Thugchildz

Are you going to unrevert pending discussion then? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
looks like someone already did but are you going to make your point? --Thugchildz
Thugchildz, yes the para is POV but it is supported by sources. One source is cricinfo, which for this purpose can considered as international. The other two are The Age and Sydney Morning Herald which are both Australian. Financial data is given in these sources. The head of the Asian commitee, Bindra said that it was the money that won the bid. So whose POV is it? Australians sources agree and BCCI agrees, which I think represents "both sides"? GizzaChat © 06:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
but its still POV. As it to me can't be proved it was because of financial strenght of the indian board no matter what people from the two boards say. It could have been that they won the bid because they could simply host/organize a better event and won because of their presentation.--Thugchildz
As for the pictures is there any reason for keeping those two while not having pictures from any other world cup then? As I said there's reason behind the two pictures I added so the other two is now not need and the current way the pictures are doesn't make the article look any better, worse even, and doesn't even stay with the certain sections.--Thugchildz

The more pictures the BETTER, you need pics for FAC. As for the paragraph, I think its clear and informative, if we start removing sourced paragraphs like that then Wikipedia will have to become half of what it is now. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is no problem in having more pictures. And if you think the para is POV, instead of removing it, you should have balanced the POV by providing the other reasons with sources. But if the ICC commitee explicitly said that the money was a crucial factor and it has reported in many news websites, I don't see what the problem is. Remember NPOV is not "No point of view," it is "Neutral point of view" which is providing adding other reasons is better than removing it. Btw, can you find any other sourced reasons? GizzaChat © 21:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
if the more picture the better than, why not put a picture from every world cup that is available on wiki, plus as when you try to fit the pictures next to its section it doesn't fit. As for pov than if you are going to add it back on can you please say who said it. Example in the champions trophy article it says its a waste of time but it also says "wisden called it" something like that before saysing its a waste of time --Thugchildz

Most successful in infobox[edit]

The infobox judges the most sucessful team by number of wins when I reckon the number of times the team has become champions is more accurate. In both cases, the first team is Australia but order of the other teams changes. For example, I'm guessing that England and New Zealand have more wins than Sri Lanka in World Cup history because before 1996, the Sri Lankans were near Zimbabwe and Kenya level in all forms of cricket. But if you ask any cricket fanatic, which team has had more World Cup success: England or Sri Lanka, they are a lot more likely to say Sri Lanka since they have won a World Cup. GizzaChat © 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, do we really need an infobox? The two related FAs FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup (not that we have to copy everything in those articles) don't have an infobox. The reason why I dislike it is because nothing new is added to the article. It only repeats information found in other parts of the article. Infoboxes aren't used to summarise information like this one does. They are meant to have information which doesn't look good in prose (eg. for a batsman, their "hand" average, no. of hundreds). If you look at Don Bradman, the only thing mentioned in the infobox and elsewhere in the article is his average 99.94, which is because his average is noteworthy enough. GizzaChat © 06:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good summary and more useful than a lone picture in the lead. Btw, Sri Lanka have won only 37% of their World Cup matches but that's owing to their early minnow status. England have won 63% although that may drop when we get to the half-way point of this year. :D Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

going by championships for successful is pointless as there's already champions section. you can be successful in the world cup but not win it. a player could be successful but not win the world cup, does it not make the player not successful? so would the wins not count for anything if a team has more wins than anyone but never got a world cup. winning the world cup is an achievement and only adds to your success, but success is not limited to the achievement. wouldn't you say sri lanka were only successful in the '96 world cup as they really didn't perform that much better than england in recent years/over all, england as whole(not just current side) been more successful than sri lanka in the world cup over all, probably because you were established as a cricket nation long before but thats to their credit. :D . as for why are we not following exactly the way fifa world cup and rugby world cup's articles are written? well it has the base of those FA articles but mind you those are a different sports than cricket and cricket might need something different somewhere and not need a section that those articles need as they both are codes of football and not cricket. We have similar bases to the articles, but dont need to follow them exactly, do we? may be they might follow something new that we come up with right? everyone can benifit from someone...--Thugchildz

Well "most successful" is subjective, just like it depends on your personal opinion whether the Windies in the 80's were better or worse than the Australians now. I think we should change the words to "Most wins." It is more accurate, wins doesn't always mean a team is good (especially if the wins were against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Holland etc.). There are more minnows now than twenty years ago, which is probably why the number of wins Australia has is much more than the West Indies. GizzaChat © 08:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

true but west indies are playing now too right? so its fair for everyone 'cause they are getting the same opportunity as anyone else to beat a minnow. its not a comparason between era's. it's to say which nation was better in the world cup altogether since the beginning and the wins certainly show that. no need to change the name as it alreadi says in the parenthesis its going by wins.

Has an attempt ever been made towards holding World Cup Tournament for Test Matches??

None that have really gotten past the level of random speculation anyway. Tests last for 5 days, and there are always at least two days between matches, so you could only do one match per week, which severely hampers things. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

FU status of Clive Lloyd picture[edit]

It doesn't seem fair use to me. The picture looks like it was a commemorative poster or a commemorative card or seomthing (with the "75" on it). That would make it invalid, as the FUC has a specific example where you can't use a baseball card to describe the player depicted on it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a poster or anything...the "75" is meant to be the year 1975 add in by a photoshop...So it is not a card and perfectly useable.--Thugchildz
But you can't go and photoshop other people's copyrighted work. Is that a photoshop of a copyright FU? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
oh no it's not even photoshoped by me. its photoshoped by the person who has the copyrights. So its usuable as it's just a normal picture --Thugchildz
I don't see the point of all these pictures placed randomly around the article. Half of them are copyrighted and the other half have little association to the World Cup itself. Look at FIFA World Cup and you'll realise that some of the best articles are ones without many pictures at all anyway. If nobody objects, I will start removing the trophy pictures from this article immediately. --mdmanser 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Cricket is usually a game of trivia, but there is an excess of trivia in the article especially in the history section. I wanted to discuss these with other editors, rather than unilaterally removing them. I find the following details as too much trivia that needs to be removed or heavily trimmed.

  • The odds of India winning the cup were quoted at 66 to 1 before the competition began.
  • Referred as the 'Cornered Tigers' at the time, Pakistan overcame a dismal start to emerge as winners, defeating England by 22 runs in the final at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. (italised parts to be removed)
  • In the other semi-final in Mohali, Australia defeated the West Indies after the Caribbean team lost their last seven wickets for 29 runs in their run-chase.
  • After losing two matches in the group phase, one of the favourites, Australia needed to avoid defeat in seven consecutive matches to win the title. They subsequently qualified for the final after reaching their target in their Super Six match against South Africa off the final ball of the match and proceeded to the final after a tie in the semi-final against South Africa, in which a mix-up between South African batsmen Lance Klusener and Allan Donald saw Donald drop his bat and stranded mid-pitch to be run out. In the other semi-final, Pakistan, who had qualified first in both the group and Super Six phase, defeated New Zealand. (Needs excessive trimming)
  • Kenya's win against Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe along with New Zealand's forfeit helped them get a Semi-final berth against India. India went on to defeat the Kenyans to set up a final against Australia in Johannesburg, who had defeated Sri Lanka in the other Semi-final.

Please share your opinion on the issue. — Ambuj Saxena () 10:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who removed the cornered tigers thing, but I did find a reference for it in a book I have just located. If you don't really want such a statistically-detailed page, I guess it could be moulded to try and remove the details of the matches/ups and downs without including all the numerical specifics. I thought history and evolution of the tournament would be quite a notable thing in the world cup. The other thing that I noticed is that the bit I put in about the LTTE bombings in Colombo in 1996 which resulted in Australia and WI forfeiting their matches has been removed. I would say that this was quite a notable thing, since the boycott came after the Australian summer in which Muralitharan was no-balled by Hair, ugly confrontations between SL and AUS players on the field, and lead to extremely angry responses from the subcontinental public...Kapil Dev I think called for Australia to be expelled from the WC. Apart from that, the WC also has political overtones sometimes, and has also seen some quite tactical innovations being brought out, such as NZ opening the bowling in 1992 with off spinner Dipak Patel and slow medium Chris Harris, Pakistan using the late-launch while batting, and in 1996, Sri Lanka changing ODI batting theory using wicket-keepeers to open the batting and slog over the infield in the first 15 overs. I think the political and cricket strategic impact has been underdone in this article. I don't see why the article could not be further expanded, as it 1s about 40k, and a large part of that is just the the coding for the tables - the main text is not that comprehensive. I feel that an FA should really fill me with more information than it currently does, especially in the history...What do people feel if I re-expanded it? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I say please don't expand it with more detail here. This is just an overview but please do expand the main article for the History of the world cup, also you could expand the each tournaments articles more, some of them barely have enough info.--Thugchildz

Image relocation[edit]

I suggest that the Cricket world cup trophy.jpg be moved from Trophy section to the lead (replacing AUSTRALIA WIN WC03.jpg) on lines of Rugby World Cup. — Ambuj Saxena () 12:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I Agree wholeheartedly. I also question the value of the infobox where almost all of that information is repeated to the left of it in the opening paragraph. Perhaps that could be removed too? --mdmanser 12:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I would support removing the infobox too as the whole information in repeated. Moreover, I find that AUSTRALIA WIN WC03.jpg fails the fair-use criteria that states that "[...]Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." The image is used to illustrate the World Cup, and a free photograph of the World Cup is present in the article itself. The image should be removed from this article. — Ambuj Saxena () 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
if you guys paid attention nobleeagle already expalind the infobox issue and i quote "I don't believe the infobox needs removing because it is more informative then a picture of the world cup alone. It is not more or less useful than a biography article having an infobox about the person's death, birth and occupation etc. As all these things are presented in the article itself. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)"
Despite your argument I still prefer removing it. Not only is it entirely repeated information but much of it is misleading unless enough context is given. An example: "Total participants - 17" It doesn't specify whether that is in each tournament or the number there have ever been since the tournament started (I understand there is the word total but it still isn't very clear). The bottom two lines with Top run scorer(s) and Top wicket taker(s) have the same problem and these don't even have the word total. The Tournament Format constantly changes and it doesn't mention "Current". If we use current, what will Current be? The World Cup that just happened or the one just about to happen? It is better to summarise the information in the lead section than in an infobox IMO. GizzaChat © 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

thats because we always going to use the one that just happened because the one about to happen might not happen for whatever -war, disaster etc. i think total participants in pretty clear as it is. top wicket takers are pretty clear too because its talking about the whole world cup together not a certain event. those are pretty weak arguments against it and i dont believe it should be removed for those reasons. plus somethings are always unclear in the summaries thats why you read the whole thing to find out further.--Thugchildz

Yes, the infobox is a summary of the World Cup tournament, but almost everything in the infobox is quoted to the very left of it (in the introduction). In that sense, it is only taking up space for no reason and should be speedily removed. I've yet to see such an infobox on any other major World Cup tournament (including two FA ones) so I don't see why there needs to be one here. --mdmanser 06:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
i dont think almost everything is quoted to the left of it. and what space are you talking about? we have enough space for this article compared to the fifa world cup which is 54 kilobytes long while this article is only 38 kilobytes long and if you are talking about the space to the right, do you have anything better to put it there? because a picture alone isn't better than this. plus im senseing people are afraid to do something thats their own and are always tempted to copy every single thing of the other two articles? why is that?(i know those are FA but still). And so you were saying if you saw a infobox in those two articles you would let it stay here but since they are not using one we cant use one? or if that wasn't your point i dont see a reason for this statement:"I've yet to see such an infobox on any other major World Cup tournament (including two FA ones) so I don't see why there needs to be one here. "


Can someone please put up a picture that shows all the world cup trophies that has been made till date. I know all the world cup trophies look different and it would be interesting to see them all, instead of a picture showing one particular wining team! What do you people have to say about this?

there isnt a single picture that shows the world cup trophies alone except the current one--Thugchildz

Everything in that infobox is already stated in the introduction. I don't know how else to word my thoughts so that you understand what I'm thinking. And with regards to the "space" issue, I'm not talking about article size (as in 38KB) but as in the visible length of the article. The infobox is very unpractical and is lacking in the aesthetics department, not to mention that it's pointless given all the information is quoted right next to it (with the exception of the highest run scorer and wicket taker). Also, don't strive to be different to something that is a already a major success. Forget the infobox and just make it a picture of the World Cup trophy at the top left of the article. I really don't want to initiate a poll. --mdmanser 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

if you go look at other infoboxes too like a coutries one they too have repeated stuff on the infobox as there are already the same thing in the intro for those articles too. i don't know how this is making the artcles visible long as it at most will make the article LOOK two to three lines longer but it really isn't any concern. plus its not point less as the viewer doesn't have to even read through the 4 paragraphs to know those things as they can just look at the points and get the answer. if they want more they read the intro, if they want to really learn about it they read the rest of the article. why are you making a huge deal out of it when i really never saw you contribute to anything big on this article or any of the other cricket world cup articles. nobleeagle is the biggest contributer to this article and he thinks its a good idea. i dont know why without contributing much to the article you want to make it a big deal. how about we let it stay and see if it will really be the "obsticle" of this article getting to FA. if it is, we'll remove it but if its not it will stay. so for now please dont make it a big deal and just contribute with whatever you can on other parts of the article. thank you--Thugchildz
Maybe if you looked into the history more thoroughly you would have found that I did in fact make some major additions to this article about a year ago. I even made the entire 2007 Cricket World Cup qualification page. And even if I didn't make any cotributions (which, as you've found out just now, is a complete hypothetical), why should I be excluded from making constructive criticism and expressing my personal opinion? Just because you have done quite a bit of editing recently doesn't mean you own this page and have all authority into how this page is managed. --mdmanser 08:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

your absolutely right its not my page or any else's in particular. but lets not make a big deal now.--Thugchildz

Go ahead with the FAC[edit]

I still see few problems with the article but exposing it to a large non-cricket following group of Wikipedia will fix all of them. Parts of the article do not provide enough info like pre-1999 trophy. You might as well nom it for FAC though. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain from constructive criticism. GizzaChat © 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

New Infobox?[edit]

ICC Cricket World Cup
Administrator(s) International Cricket Council
Champions Flag of Australia.svg Australia
Participants 19
Most runs Flag of India.svg Sachin Tendulkar (1732)
Most wickets Flag of Pakistan.svg Wasim Akram (55)

I'm really not a fan of a cricket tournament infobox, but here's an alternative I've come up with to the current one. It's heavily based on the actor infobox which looks great and keeps things simple. The box is much less space consuming and looks better to the eye in my opinion. --mdmanser 16:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The "participants" and "qualified nations" in the Infobox are misleading/ambiguous, and should be removed unless anyone has any fundamental objections, or replaced by something less misleading.

"Participants" seems to refer only to the 2007 tournament (16) rather than throughoput the history of the Competition - for example, in previous World Cups there have been 8, 9, 12 and 14 teams in the Finals. Perhaps this should simply be the number of teams involved in the whole process (i.e. the 97 entrants), but it should definitelyt state that this is for the 2007 World Cup.

"Qualified nations" is uninformative, and may lead readers into thinking that 19 nations have qualified for the next World Cup finals. I suggest that this is simply deleted.

--Dave. 11:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


The section with the detailed format of qualifying through the ICC Trophy seems a little convoluted for inclusion here. Very confusing for readers who don't understand the system (and the chronological/divisional aspect seems to defy logic to me!)

Perhaps this could be better place in the actual ICC Trophy article, where it could be explained in greater detail rather than in this one? (I note also that it is in the Cricket World Cup qualification article as well - would it not be better to simply direct readers interested in the full qualifying process to that instead?) I'd be inclined to terminate this particular section of the article after words "in which they start the qualifying process". Comments? --Dave. 12:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Inaugural Host[edit]

The article states "The inaugural Cricket World Cup was hosted in 1975 by England, the only nation with the resources to stage an event of such magnitude at that time". The line is cited, but I question it, so I visited the reference. The resource states "Only England was prepared to put forward the resources necessary for the inaugural one-day world championship."

I think the line in the article misrepresents the reference and should be changed. Dgen 04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Main Page request[edit]

I've requested that this article appear on the main page on either 13 March or 28 April to coincide with the start or final of this year's tournament. See the banner at the top for linkage. →Ollie (talkcontribs) 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. I hope it makes 13 March, to raise awareness of the tournament as it begins, rather than as it's about to end, but either date is good. In my opinion, it was important that we made this article a featured article for the world cup, because it's brilliant to see cricket getting a bit of recognition! Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I see Google has highlighted the WC in their stylised logo on tne Google search page for today.[1] This article is no. 2 after the ICC website. —Moondyne 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but they only did it for the the cricket-loving countries. Even Canada who is participating in the event just has the normal logo. [2]. It's a shame many of the Americans won't see a cricket bat and ball for the first time in their lives :) GizzaChat © 11:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
From one of those Americans whose yet to see a cricket bat and ball in person, good job on the article! I still don't understand the game well (even after reading the main article on the game) but the article was still an entertaining and interesting read. Congrats on your main page FA! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 03:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The main article Cricket is also a feature article, which you can read if you are unclear on how the game works. Another article for those familiar with baseball is Comparison between cricket and baseball. GizzaChat © 05:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I still can't believe wikipedia doesn't put any form of protection on Featured Articles. It's a bit naive if you ask me, but no-one is. - Aheyfromhome 10:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done for getting this on the main page for this day everybody! Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing all images[edit]

It said on the summary that its a modification of the free picture on flicker which that other pic is sourced!--Thugchildz 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you give the specific Flickr image link? Not all images on Flickr are free. If that one is, I'll work with you to make sure the sourcing is up to snuff. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:World-champions-cup-75.jpg - captain lifting trophy, not discussed in the article, used decoratively to illustrate the phrase "The tournament was won by the West Indies".
It is in fact discussed on the article because it shows the west indies wining the first world cup!--Thugchildz 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:Kapil_Dev.gif - captain lifting trophy, not discussed in the article, used decoratively to illustrate the phrase, "India, ..., were crowned champions".
Again it is discussed, shows the indians winning the 4rd world cup--Thugchildz 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It was ok in the FA review so i think its ok to be there.--Thugchildz 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:Image-WCL.jpg - World Cricket League - logo is not relevant to the world cup. Used to decorate the brief discussion of the league.
Actualy the world cricket league is like part of the on going world cup process--Thugchildz 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
care to explain how?
Im not trying to argue with you or anything, but this is like screwing up the main-page, we like dont have a picture on there! it looks kinda cheap and nasty? cant we just chuck the CWC Trophy one back up? SMBarnZy 11:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That depends what you mean by "screwing up the main-page". I would count presenting a unsourced, unfree image as the best illustration we have of our featured article as pretty "screwed up". Having no image on the other hand just ... different. ed g2stalk 12:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised these were all non-free in the first place. More effort should be spent finding free images for a featured article. I agree with Ed that the Flickr photo looks like it came from a non-free source given the background image.--Eloquence* 12:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested at WT:CRIC as a placeholder, we should at least use a recaptioned version of the map that's still in the article as our Main page image. I have no idea how to do this. I've also asked Ed to take a look at some other recent cricket FAs to check images. These issues really should be raised at FAC, as this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. --Dweller 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Smbarnzy, this looks terrible without a photo, infact i had no desire to read this article other then to look at discussion and find out why there was no photo.

There's nothing wrong with publicising the fact that we don't have any good free photos for this article. Hopefully it will encourage someone to dig out something from their collection and upload it. Filling an article with press photos we've found on Google image search and proclaiming "this is one of the best articles we have to offer" doesn't speak well of our project. ed g2stalk 14:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also how is these pictures not fair use? It has everything to do with the WORLD CUP!!!--Thugchildz 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also if you look at the FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup you'll find pictures like these too and they are FA's. But most of all, ALL THESE PICTURES PASSED FAC, they have fair use rationales and everything; no other pictures have been added since this article have been FA. Please have good faith.--Thugchildz 01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to make it clear do remove the pictures in the future without finishing and giving the people time to respond.--Thugchildz 05:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The way Golden Wattle restored the images in this edit was unhelpful, because he/she also undid a lot of other good changes that had been done in the meantime. Unfortunately I don't have time to sort it all out at the moment. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To respond to a number of points:

  1. FAC != perfect. Not many users voted in the FAC nomination, approval from that body of users does not mean the article complies with all our policies.
  2. Both Football and Rugby World Cup articles use mostly free images. The use of free images is not restricted by our Fair Use policy. If they can work without unfree images then this should article should be able to as well.
  3. Being relevant to the article is not sufficient to use the images. While they may legally qualify as Fair Use (although we will probably never know) they must also satisfy our Fair Use criteria, which are in place to limit the amount of unfree media we use to very limited circumstances. If the image is not adding significantly to the discussion then we shouldn't be use the image. Adding the picture of the winning squad with the trophy when all that is mentioned is "Team X won in Y" is also excessive.
  4. While an organisation might be relevant to an article, there is not need to include their logo at the mention of their name. Such as usage of the logo is decorative. ed g2stalk 12:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. About close to 15-20 people voted, not many?
    Like I said, approval from that body does not mean the article complies with out policies. ed g2stalk 12:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. It does satisfy our policies and is used limitedly, you cant replace the 1975 pictures, its irreplaceable and all the others are the same way. It is adding significantly to the discussion, there isn't any free picture to show the 1st world cup!
    "there isn't any free picture to show the 1st world cup!" - how do you know someone with a photo wouldn't be prepared to freely license it. "It is adding significantly to the discussion" - it really doesn't. It shows a man lifting a trophy. Neither the event (the prize giving), the man nor the trophy itself are discussed in the article. ed g2stalk 12:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Its not decorative of using that logos, because its the logos of the world cup and this just bogus saying no need to use the logos. For gods sake its the world cups logos!--Thugchildz 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    It does not illustrate a specific point being made, nor the subject of the article which is the cricket world cup in general, not the 2007 event. Use the 2007 logo on the 2007 Cricket World Cup article. ed g2stalk 12:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Free trophy image[edit]

There is a picture of the trophy on Flickr [3], which is licensed as cc-by-sa-2.0 so is compatible with GDFL. It isn't very high quality- only part of trophy in picture and a lot of flash reflected. But thought I would mention it here in case anyone thought it would add to the article (I'm not convinced it would). WjBscribe 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The glare is a real problem. The only benefit this would bring to the article would be to encourage people to find a better picture of the trophy. I definitely don't think it should be posted on the main page. Stebbins 16:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

the world cup trophy picture is free on flickr!!--Thugchildz 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact it says its free does not mean it is. From the background it seems to be a promo photo someone has uploaded to Flickr and claimed is free when in fact it isn't. WjBscribe 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well then it would be Flickr or the uploader's problem even if it wasn't free! and who made you the guy that makes the judgment on uploaders of flickr and if they are picture is free or not? can you please provide proof that that picture is not free before accusing and assuming that its not free?--Thugchildz 00:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't Flickr's problem it is Wikipedia's problem. Someone cannot pass better title than they have. In the same way that a thief claiming goods are theirs does not make them theirs, someone claiming a copyright photo is theirs does not make it theirs. But OK, lets open up the discussion. I will nominate the photo for deletion and we can have wider input. WjBscribe 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Who said the picture isn't free?Why do you get to decide? Ah and whats the reason for nominating it for deletion? Because your guessing that the uploader of flickr is lieing?--Thugchildz 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that you removed the original deletion tag from the image on Commons [4]. Might I suggest you contribute to the discussion at Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png on Commons rather than removing the tag? WjBscribe 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Second that request. THANKS. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New Comment[edit]

The article states that "Sri Lanka, who co-hosted the 1996 Cricket World finals, is the only host to win the tournament.[11]" This is misleading - they co-hosted the World Cup, but the final game was in Pakistan. I suggest removing this sentence. -V 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It already says "(although the final was held in Pakistan) in brackets. That's good enough. Cricinfo defines Sri Lanka as being the first host to win, for example. Sam Vimes | Address me 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Article says, "Sri Lanka, who co-hosted the 1996 Cricket World Cup, is the only host to win the tournament, though the final was held in Pakistan.", which is perfect in all sense. It is not stated as Sri Lanka co-hosted the finals. - KNM Talk 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny. There are also Cricinfo articles which say the Windies want to be the first host to ever win the World Cup. Can't be bothered to dig them out :) GizzaChat © 10:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures dispute[edit]

Perhaps this clear area will help the dispute focus instance by instance. --Dweller 12:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, Dweller, thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Clearly unfree - soon to be deleted from Commons. ed g2stalk 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But to expand on this, it seems it's an unauthorised copy of someone else's photo, and also can't be claimed as free use because it's replaceable (in the sense of WP:FUC paragraph 1). It seems to me that a replacement could never be free enough for commons because the trophy is copyrighted too, and the photo probably inherits that copyright. But a replacement taken by one of us, say, could be claimed as fair use. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
But would such a picture be fair use in this article? It would seem to me that it would be fair use if accompanying a discussion of the design of the trophy. But I'm not sure its fair use if just illustrating the phrase "there is a trophy" or being used in an infobox to decorate the article. WjBscribe 14:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite, there should be some discussion of the trophy before we require an unfree illustration, which definitely shouldn't be in the infobox. ed g2stalk 19:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
please explain FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup? They both have their trophies! I think this is fairly unfair looking what the football projects gets to do and no one really goes after 'em what we get to do. Also The trophy can be here under fair use for the trophy and FREE for the picture because there's a whole section about the trophy.--Thugchildz 05:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
They're both using an actual free image of the respective trophies, not a promotional photo someone on flickr claims is a free picture. WjBscribe 05:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok but thats not what you 1st stated as the reason why we cant have a picture of the trophy is it? 2nd if that picture is a promotional picture why cant the flickr user be the guy that made the promotional picture? This is pathetic...--Thugchildz 05:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. It has been generally agreed that it is extremely unlikely that the flickr user is the original author. ed g2stalk 09:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok so you are saying that a normal person couldn't have made that picture? Its not that hard to take a picture and edit it on some photoshop you know. I ask you kindly to just ask the flcikr user about the picture if you have an flickr account. Also I wasn't talking about that particular picture but that you said we couldn't use trophy pictures. Thats just bogus and we can use trophy pictures because its big part of the tournament.--Thugchildz 00:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What does the following mean: "The trophy is designed with platonic dimensions, so that it can be easily recognised from any angle". Maias 11:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I'd like to have the Flickr photo as the lead picture, I'm sad to say that it could not be classified under "fair use" as there is a free alternative that is readily available on the web (even though it is of poor quality). Let's all remember that Wikipedia is not a personal website that copyright owners ignore. Wikipedia is the 10th most viewed site in the world and as a result is much more subject to copyright scrutiny. We all have to abide by fair use rationales as a result. --mdmanser 04:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The Flickr photo doesn't have to be classified as fair use, because thats free too, but its the trophy which is copyright and for that it will be used as fair use.--Thugchildz 05:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Teams/captains celebrating[edit]

The individuals and the teams are not the subject of this article. The trophies are not discussed either, nor are the events depicted (specifically, the prize givings - many events could represent a team "winning", such as the last wicket falling etc.). Use images to illustrate what you are discussing when the text is inadequate, not just arbitrarily selected photos related to what you are discussing. ed g2stalk 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about these ones, but in the end I think they're probably not justifiable. They're certainly images of historical events that can't be recreated, and for the older ones I doubt we can find any free substitutes. However, I think they fail WP:FUC paragraph 8, in that their function is essentially decorative — they don't add anything significant which is not already in the text. This is a judgment call, and other people may disagree. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think these are as clear a problem as the logos, but the fact that the text mention that team X won event Y does not seem to be a justification for using a copyrighted picture of the celebrations of that team. I don't see how the pictures are needed to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. A discussion about how images of celebrations by cricket teams that won the CWC can be iconic (if this is the case) might justify using those pics, but they do seem rather decorative. WjBscribe 14:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well at least the 1st world cup photo is significant! So if not the others, this should definetly stay right? because thats not decorating. It's showing the 1st world cup and so i strongly feel that at least, at least the 1st world cup picture surely belongs.--Thugchildz 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not showing any particular event about the 1st world cup that is discussed. ed g2stalk 09:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is, its about the final which is being talked about in the article and the final was part of the 75 world cup which is talked about more in the article! I thought the rugby world cup didn't use fair use images then why do they have a picture with someone getting a trophy which is fair use?--Thugchildz 00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Forget it. As I said in a previous discussion a couple of months ago, the pictures illustrate something much more specific than the World Cup as a whole. There is no place for them in the Cricket World Cup page. Putting copyright laws aside, these pictures have no place here and are of shocking quality anyway. --mdmanser 04:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because the picture doesn't have to be about the world cup as whole, its big part of it and thats what its required to be. Its about the(to be most specific) WI winning the 1st world cup, which was part of the 75 world cup which is the history of the world cup. And quality problem? Well guess what fair use pictures have to be low quality anyway.--Thugchildz 05:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture is was used purely for decorative purpose. The text itself is sufficient to give a complete understanding of the event, and the picture does not illustrate anything not adequately covered in the text. If Australia won the world cup, writing that in text should be sufficient and I don't see any justification for using copyrighted photos for it. Fair-use images should be used only when they are indispensable, and decoration (if at all required) must be restricted to free images only. I raised the issue of the photos failing FUC during the FAC of the article, but was singled out as no one else who participated in the FAC took the issue seriously. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it decorative because its showing how it was when it(cwc) 1st started and now what it is? Is that replaceable? I don't think so, without the picture you wont know how it was, the feeling of the picture(1st world cup). irreplaceable. plus look at the Rugby World Cup, they have Image:Nelson Mandela 1995 World Cup.jpg for "Nelson Mandela hands the Webb Ellis Cup to the South Africa captain, Francois Pienaar, following their win in the 1995 final." Not not even as big as the 1st world cup of cricket.--Thugchildz 06:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you haven't even bothered to read the Rugby World Cup article. Quoting it, "The tournament had a fairytale ending, as South Africa were crowned champions over the All Blacks, which concluded with then President Nelson Mandela, wearing a Springbok jersey and matching baseball cap, presenting the trophy to the South Africa's captain Francois Pienaar. The moment is seen as one of the most emotional in the sport's history.[6]" This is a near-perfect example of a place where the image is indispensable. I am yet to see similar discussion in CWC article that would justify the images. All the article does is spell out who won the world cup, and there is no mention whatsoever of the award ceremony. I don't see any iconic or historic significance associated with either Clive Lloyd, Kapil Dev, or the Australian team celebrating with the world cup that cannot be described without the use of image. Also, I don't even see any discussion in the article that compares the celebration of the first world cup with the 2003 one (for your first part of reply). The images are very ordinary (in composition) and do not add any value to the accompanying text. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
For some people, such a detailed description of the award ceremony would make the image superfluous. I guess you can't win. Either the image is described too little, leading to removal, or the image is too well described, leading to removal. In my reading of the fair use criteria, the use of such an image (of the first world cup award ceremony) is not merely decorative - it shows a historic event at the genesis of the article's subject. So the purpose is valid, but the other criteria such as proportion of reproduction, possible commerical impact for those selling the image, etc. have to be considered. --GunnarRene 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


This article is not about the 2007 competition. The logo need only be used on that article, here it is more than adequate just to mention the competition by name (FUC#1). Same applies to the league logo and the mascot. ed g2stalk 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you on this one. It doesn't make any difference to the legality of the fair use claim whether the article is about the 2007 competition, or whether the paragraph including the picture is. The logo and the mascot are showing things mentioned in the text that can't be adequately described in words. As long as they're in a section about the 2007 competition, we're safe. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Except the logos are not mentioned in the text, and the "discussion" of the mascot amounts to one line of text, hardly a significant part of the article that needs illustrating. ed g2stalk 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ed, the logos are not illustarting a discussion of the logos- they are decorating a mention of the organisations whose logos they are. I don't see how that can be justified under fair use policy. WjBscribe 14:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Even Mello? I don't think I'd know what "an orange raccoon-like creature" might look like without the picture. It seems to me it obviously explains the text. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Except that it's one line of text, and therefore not a significant part of the article. If you're illustrate an insignificant part of the article you're not adding significantly, are you? If we had an article about the mascot, or World Cup mascots in general, or there was a section on the 2007 article about the significance of the mascot, the merchandising surrounding it etc. then you might have a need for the image. ed g2stalk 19:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I concede that there is a stronger (though still pretty weak) case for including "Mello" that the other logos. WjBscribe 04:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The logos are part of the world cup no matter what world cup its still the world cup and so they do belong--Thugchildz 05:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether they are relevant, but whether they are necessary. WjBscribe 05:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are necessary because they are relevant. No logos are really necessary but then why are so many on wiki? So yes in fact its necessary.--Thugchildz
No. Necessary images are relevant, but relevant pictures are not always necessary. I imagine there are thousands of photos taken at the world cup that are relevant, are you saying we need to include all of these as well!? ed g2stalk 09:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well it is necessary to show the logos because they are official logos of the world cup. tell me this, is it really necessary to use any logo? Then why are there so many on wiki? This is really partial on you part.--Thugchildz 00:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If every single thing in the article needed illustration then the article would be littered by pictures and make it impossible to read. There's not need to include a picture of a mascot in this article. Logos shouldn't really extend past one page (in this case the 2007 Cricket World Cup page). --mdmanser 04:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No everything doesn't need to be illustrative and no one said it did and it isn't. And for using the logos it meets the policy and so its ok.--Thugchildz 05:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, these are the official logos of the 2007 World Cup and the World League, but this is not the article about those things. The logos needn't be used beyond those articles. Do not add those logos again please. ed g2stalk 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I added it back because the 2007 world cup part of the world cup and so the the world cricket league. The world cricket league which where most of the 97 entrants that take part in the tournament play and then in the 2007 world cup the finals take place all of which is part of the big picture- the world cup.--THUGCHILDz 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
And as I explained, you can use those logos on the articles about those things. They are only mentioned briefly here. The logos' significance to this article (World Cups in general) is not discussed. The two things can be mentioned adequately without using their logos. See WP:NFCC#1. ed g2stalk 10:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1st of all I don't think any logos's significance to any article is discussed. And as far as I'm concerned we can use logo's in article's that relates to the logo's and that would be acceptable with the owners. This article is about the world cup and those logo's are about the world cup too. I know we can use those in those articles but we can also we them in here.--THUGCHILDz 01:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
We do not permit every logo that is related to the competition. It is perfectly adequate to mention another body without using their logo. As such the images fail WP:NFCC#1. As for the second image I have spoken to the flickr user and he doesn't have a great grasp of copyright. I suspect the image is a photo of a video. ed g2stalk 10:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not another body, it's the same thing! Get that. And on the second image, really? All I saw was a comment on it's page with you asking if it was his and he responded yes. But could you please post you're conversation with the uploader here? And who makes you the judge to decide that if your suspicion is correct or not?--THUGCHILDz 00:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
He claimed cc-by on some photos he took of tv screens. Whether or no they are the same organisation, they have separate Wikipedia articles. There is no need to have any logo on more than one page, unless its appearance is being discussed. ed g2stalk 09:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about some picture. Can you ask him about the trophy. The Mello picture is being discussed.--THUGCHILDz 03:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The World League is not the same thing as the World Cup. Whatever their connection, there is no need to use the logo to discuss their it. It can be done adequately using text. Do not add these images again. ed g2stalk 09:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Really? Then how would the 97 members participate in the world cup? The world cricket league is part of the world cup, it's the sub-tournament of the world cup while the finals of it is taking part now.--THUGCHILDz 03:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The FA Premier league, the Championship and Leagues One and Two are are sub-tournaments of the English Football League sysytem, yet we still manage to write that article without the logos of each league. They are simply non-essential to any article other than the main article on each league. You must demonstrate why the section on the League is inadequate without the logos, i.e. what does the logo of the League tell us about the World Cup. You must not re-add the logo if you can't do this. It will result in page protection or a block. ed g2stalk 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think threatening is a good form of practice here.--THUGCHILDz 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

One could question the necessity of including the logos, just as the necessity of this article or even of the entire encyclopedia can be called into question. It's not a purely decorative use, but it's not as essential to the article as Image:The Falling Man.jpg is to The Falling Man either. I'd like to remind, though, that when the logo appears in a daughter article, we don't actually raise the proportion of reproduction by including it here. Also, there seems to be no negative effect for the copyright owners here. Does the logo of an event "(e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text)..."? As the Cricket World Cup consists of periodic events, I would say that including logos of the individual events satisfies this criterium, and it would even be justifiable to have the logos of every single event in the list of events. Now, even if it contributes significantly to the article, by identifying the individual events to the reader, that does not necessarily mean that they MUST be included. --GunnarRene 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well not pictures or logos must be included really. But it does enhance the article a lot. How would the reader know what a raccoon-like creature looks like as it says in the article without the picture?--THUGCHILDz 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not the page to discuss in detail the appearance of the 2007 mascot, so there is no need for the image. "Mello" is only on this page as an item in a list ("CWC's have mascots e.g. ..."). ed g2stalk 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reserve days/extra time[edit]

We don't seem to have anything on this in the article. Also, is the ongoing Australia-West Indies match the first time that a CWC game has lasted longer than a day? Anyone? Grant | Talk 06:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC) was the first. Off the top of my head, there should be around 10 such matches. Tintin 07:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea. Do you think it should be mentioned in the article? Grant | Talk 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be better to avoid too many details in this articles though it would be fine in the ones about the respective world cups. There is a complete list of 2 day games here. (I got most of it wrong - only 7 games and there were two in 1979 too) Tintin 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Austrailia socred the highiest score for world cup in history

Most consecutive wins[edit]

Austrailia Which is correct

The one on this page or the one at —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

The unbeaten streak of 29 games includes a tie in the semi-final stage of the 1999 world cup. Australia advanced to the final due to their superior standing on the table in the super sixes stage of the competition. As such, the streak of 23 games begins with the final of the 1999 world cup against Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevstarrunner (talkcontribs) 07:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Flag of East and Central Africa Cricket Conference.svg[edit]

The image Image:Flag of East and Central Africa Cricket Conference.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

New rules in 2011 world cup[edit]

Any new subject or introducing refral system to decrease the stain of umpires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajashekahr (talkcontribs) 07:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2011 World cup[edit]

After so many years India is hosting a world event,so it is very intresting to see how things move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajashekahr (talkcontribs) 07:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Flag Issues[edit]

Host Flags[edit]

England World Cup 1999[edit]

I know there have been matches held in Scotland, Ireland and the Netherlands but the "name" of the host was listed as "England" for the 1999 tournament as well as South Africa for the 2003.

As a compromise it should have the nations of venues still listed but the flag should be the name of the host that is listed ie "England 99".

South Africa World Cup 2003[edit]

To those that keep adding in all the nations who host a few games especially South Africa World Cup it was marketed as SOUTH AFRICA 2003...

That is rather convincing link provided above. Stop making the info boxes overly longer than required.--Auxodium II (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE look at this thanks? The flags listed are just too many and too stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not stupid, they were all hosts. I'm starting a discussion at WT:CRIC to resolve this once and for all. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

South Africa was THE HOST, they allocated matches to Zimbabwe and Kenya. The signage throughout the tournament even in these two countries said SOUTH AFRICA 2003. You are just being pedantic. Should be a note at the bottom of the lists to say some games were held outside of South Africa (same goes for 1999) -- (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

West Indies Flag[edit]

I know WI is a sporting confederation. Can't we use the WI cricket logo as a pic instead. The blank looks weird

Welsh Flag[edit]

Can we not have the Welsh flag in the hosts lists as technically Wales does not have a cricket side. Plus having so many flags is just ridiculous. also the ICC have it listed as 2019 World Cup England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is the asshat that keeps placing so many darn flags? CLEARLY for the 1999 and 2003 world cups the logos mention ONE COUNTRY even though some matches were played outside of the main host country. PLUS the Irish flag is the wrong flag as Cricket Ireland is all Ireland. -- (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Irish flag isn't wrong, because the flags lists the country it was played in, not the cricket team, and the matches were played in Dublin, Republic of Ireland. Also, all these countries are listed as hosts, see 1999 Cricket World Cup and 2003 Cricket World Cup, although I don't personally think Wales should be there, as England and Wales are both part of the ECB. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hosts were ENGLAND 1999 and SOUTH AFRICA 2003 with these host nations allocating matches in other venues. It is like the 2015 Rugby World Cup being hosted by England but pedantic clowns would probably insist Wales is co-hosting when clearly stating one nation as hosts. -- (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we STOP with the flags being added? Unless the marketing and official names of the tournament state who is the host we should just leave the flags as such. England 99, South Africa 2003 and England 2019. (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


In 1999 england the country which hosted 90% of the matches are considered the official hosts as other countries didn't host tthat many matches so i suggest removing them from the column. Also due to the fact that Wales and england are a united team in cricket —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Highest win %[edit]

in the Main individual and team records section

While this may be out of date by now, winning 51 out of 69 is not 75% as stated - it is 73.9%. Winning 51 out of 68 is exactly 75%. Was one of the matches a non-result or something? To me the entry looks wrong and self-contradictory - but I do not know the correct stats which should be there. Holland jon (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The ranks are wrong- the performance should be ranked according to their top finishes. Australia (4) West Indies (2), and then India Pakistan and Srilanka have a tie of 1 world cup win each and 1 runners up each. However, Pakistan is 3 times semi finalist, followed by India (2) and Sri Lanka (1). Some one need to correct this. %matches won have no value since all World cups had a different teams and number of games.

Trophy: Platonic dimensions[edit]

What does the following sentence mean: "The trophy is designed with platonic dimensions, so that it can be easily recognised from any angle".

This question was asked by user:Maias in March 2007, and doesn't seem to have received an answer, although the sentence is still there. My personal response is that it means diddly-squat. The phrase "Platonic dimensions" is mathematically meaningless, and the linking article Platonic solid is about regular solids like the tetrahedron and icosahedron, which don't appear to feature greatly in the design of the trophy. What if you view the trophy from directly beneath? Not a cube in sight. How about looking at it from overhead? Hmm, no dodecahedrons there. In fact the statement is a self-refuting load of nonsense and I'm going to boldly remove it. MinorProphet (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the removal as it was unsourced and unclear what it really meant. It was added way back in 2006 by DaGizza (talk · contribs); they're still editing so it might be worth asking what they had in mind when they made the edit (although it was a long time ago). Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Updating 'Team performance table'[edit]

It's really important that people don't part update the team performance table mid-tournament, without updating the full section or altering the text for two reasons:

  • Updates to games-played percentages (in particular) can be hard to track during a tournament. It's fairly standard practice (in my experience) to avoid partial updates to medal tables, performance timelines, etc, to avoid possible duplication of results and incorrect statistics therefore being created
  • Even more obvious updates (such as New Zealand's 2011 best performance) are problematic as they make the text self-contradictory. The sentence "The table below provides an overview of the performances of teams over past World Cups, as of the end of the 2007 tournament" is wrong if someone decides to updates New Zealand's entry to include 2011 as a joint-best performance. Now partial updates to tables can be fine (particularly in the relatively self-evident best performance column) but associated text therefore needs to be altered accordingly.

Whilst I understand Easerhead1's comment that Wikipedia is collaborative, there are a number of instances where we compromise that collaboration legitimately (eg this article is locked to unregistered users). Updating overall tables is one of those things where the best advice is to only update if you can fully update. Second to this - and its understandable as many users don't have time to update fully - is a partial update with a clear explanation, in text to the reader, as to what is and isn't updated. Partially updating and leading to a contradictory article is inappropriate. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 3 April 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} In the "Performances by Teams" section-para 2, it says "Sri Lanka, who co-hosted the 1996 Cricket World Cup, is the only host to win the tournament". Needs to be updated with India winning in 2011 now (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Full Official Name[edit]

Hello All Users and Administrators. As you all see I came here to provide Right and Correct Information on Wikipedia but some users do not think that i am doing so. I had renamed this 'Cricket World Cup' page to it's Actual Full Official Name ICC Cricket World Cup. So Because this is the Main Article of the Tournament I and most of the other general users also agree that The Name of all the world cups starting from 1975 to 2019 (latest available) Be Named with their Full Official Name as ICC Cricket World Cup Respectively on all the years according to Wikipedia's Common Name Policy, For Eg:- The Most Recently help World cup should be named as 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup. The world cups from 1975-1996 can also have their respective World cup names inside the Article Content only as there were different Sponsors at that time but ICC Was and Still Is the Main Head Organizer right from the First Tournament which was Held in 1975. As you all see that ICC (International Cricket Council) which is the Main Governing Body of the Sport Worldwide and is it's Main Organizer/Administrator just like in Football whose Main Organizer/Administrator is FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) and so all the Football World cups are Actually Officially named FIFA World Cup starting from the 1930 FIFA World Cup to All the Respective Years held till date here which are on Wikipedia. Also one can check the Offical name on ICC's official Website for Full Proof Evidence. I therefore Kindly Request all the Concerned Users and Administrators to Please take Note and Request/Initiate the Name change on all the World Cup Pages of Cricket as soon as possible. Thank You All. Yours Truly KS700 (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi KS700. We have a policy on naming here. There are five principles, none of which beat the others: Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Conciseness; Consistency. In truth there is no correct answer as to whether these articles should be at ICC World Cup or Cricket World Cup. Certainly, 'Cricket World Cup' is the most common name, but the principle of precision might suggest that ICC Cricket World Cup is appropriate as well. If you look at advice over title changes, you'll note that it suggests that:

"If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia."

Therefore in the absence of any particular obvious benefit to the name ICC Cricket World Cup (more precise, potentially more consistent with FIFA World Cup) over Cricket World Cup (more recognizable, more natural, more concise) I suggest that you stop moving articles without establishing consensus; and further, I suggest that there isn't any benefit to changing the article title. As it says above, there are many more useful ways of improving Wikipedia. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Pretty Green, Okay but how do I make the other People and the overall consensus Agree with me that at least this Main Article Page be Actually Named To ICC Cricket World Cup because this is the Actual name the ICC has just like FIFA and not to mention the 'Cricket' word will already be Included. Otherwise i have no other problem with it being named as 'Cricket World Cup'. Just wanted that the Right name should be here on Wikipedia. Suggestions from Other users are Most Welcomed. Thank You - KS700 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The name should remain Cricket World Cup, the commonly-used name for the tournament. Greenman (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
KS700, Pretty Green is NOT suggesting that we use the Official name -- I suggest that there isn't any benefit to changing the article title. In fact they have explained quite nicely the naming policy. ashwinikalantri talk 00:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Cricket World Cup trophy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Cricket World Cup trophy.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Overview Table[edit]

The table's columns don't sort correctly. I'd be tempted to tinker around with it, but I'd rather not do that with an FA.  Tigerboy1966  22:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Introduction of article[edit]

The claim is made that "The tournament is the world's fourth-largest and fourth-most-viewed sporting event."

As an unbiased professional writer about sport, I've seen this claim before, and still believe this to be nothing more than unverifiable propaganda from pro-cricket "boosters". Of the two provided references provided alongside the statement as alleged "support", one of the links is broken, and the other goes to an article originating in Canada which claims the ICC World Cup to be the #3 (not #4) most prominent sporting event in the world, after the FIFA World Cup and the Summer Olympics. In other words, NEITHER citation of info which is claimed to support the notion that the ICC World Cup is the "fourth-largest and fourth-most-viewed" sporting event in the world, actually does so.

The second one is arrant nonsense as well. The UEFA "Euro" event, the four-yearly tournament finals stage formerly known as the European Nations Championship, has an enormous worldwide interest, far outstripping any reach the cricket World Cup might have, something which probably becomes fairly evident just looking at the numbers of nations in which cricket is a prominently-followed sport, and comparing that to the international following for football/soccer.

In late 2004, a news agency item which was published in the newspaper of record in my home market - and while I don't have a copy handy, I'm sure the information is readily attainable - cited the 2004 Euro Final between Portugal and Greece as the unquestioned number-one most viewed sporting event in the world that year, ahead of anything at the Summer Olympics that year. (Athens Games).

I believe there's certainly enough evidence to bring into question whether the Summer Olympics or UEFA "Euro" is the number two most watched (worldwide) sporting event after the FIFA World Cup (unquestionably #1 for numbers and international "reach"), but they're the top three.

After that the criteria have to be defined and brought into play to determine which events are ranked after that. Rugby (as in rugby union) is played in at least as many countries, and arguably at a higher level in more different countries, than cricket. The rugby world cup would be in consideration for this category, and in the past, the international body and others within the rugby world have made very large claims for numbers of worldwide viewers.

Also brought into question are what events are ruled in and ruled out of consideration. So far all the events named have been quadrennial. If annual events, and not exclusively international ones, are also factored in, this opens the way for consideration of regular events such as the (English) FA Cup Final and the (USA) NFL Super Bowl, both of which are traditional events watched all around the world in huge numbers.

And these are just examples. Events such as the four annual tennis grand slams could be looked into - any of them would presumably have strong claims to a greater viewing audience than the ICC cricket world cup. I'm sure other examples could be supplied, not least among which would be the Winter Olympics.

Again, I believe there is no solid evidence to back up claims that "The tournament is the world's fourth-largest and fourth-most-viewed sporting event." as stated in the article introduction. Even what "fourth-largest" means there is open to question. The two references cited immediately alongside this contention do NOT support it.

I believe this statement should be withdrawn, or at least qualified, for example, "Some sources suggest...", or "Allegedly..." Actually both, of those would be better than the statement deserves. Leapso (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Add Women Cricket World Cup: Make it Unisex[edit]

Please Add Women Cricket World Cup Information in this Article. ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

But the Women Cricket World Cup is a separate competition, and so should have a separate article, like it correctly does. This is the same as other sports, where the Women's equivalent event have separate articles, even if they compete at the same time as the Men (e.g. Six Nations Championship and Women's Six Nations Championship). Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

1999 and 2003 Hosts[edit]


Over the last week or so, there's been issues with IP addresses, including constantly changing 1999/2003 hosts, details about 2023 World Cup (there are no official details except that it's in India!), and random vandalisms. As such, I've requested semi-protection. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Noticed the "Tournament records" section has a couple of outdated information, could you kindly update the following

- On bowling lowest average (min. 1000 balls), Glenn McGrath has 18.19 (instead of 19.21) average (source:;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=1000;qualval1=balls;template=results;trophy=12;type=bowling)

- On team highest win %, Australia indeed has 74%, but from 59 wins of 81 matches (instead of 55 wins of 76 matches) (source:;type=trophy)

Thank you (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed Thank you for noticing. Both were correct on List of Cricket World Cup records, but not this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: I did change it on List of Cricket World Cup records, but since this article is protected, someone has to do it. Thanks for updating it. (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks. The reason this one is semi-protected is because people kept on adding false information about 2015 World Cup final and 2023 World Cup. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2015 (Team performances)[edit]

Request for update on the section "Team performances" to reflect the latest results of the 2015 World Cup.

- Ireland should be displayed as "GP" (instead of "Q")

- Pakistan and West Indies should be displayed as "QF" (instead of "Q")

Thank you (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Contradictions between "Teams' performances" and "Overview" tables[edit]

I welcome and appreciate all your comments on this subject.

There seems to be a contradiction in both "Teams' performances" (TP) and "Overview" (TO) tables, which I believe it occurs because each table is not following its logical criteria, which in my view is different for each table. Sometimes it seems the criteria is crossing over from one table to the other.

Some issues that can be found:

- the TP table displays 1st, 2nd, SF, QF, GP, 5th-8th (at Super Six / Super Eight years) and 5th-9th (in the 1992 one group tournament). The capture of the table reads as follows in bold (with my comments in italics in parentheses):

The number of wins followed by Run-rate is the criteria for determining the rankings till the 1987 World Cup. (Not used as the table is only showing 1st, 2nd, SF and GP)

The number of points followed by, head to head performance and then Net Run-rate is the criteria for determining the rankings for the World Cups from 1992 onwards. (Super Eight of 2007, Bangladesh finished 7th and Ireland 8th (both tied with 2 points, Bangladesh with a better run-rate), just like showed on TP, however, Ireland beat Bangladesh the head to head. I believe head to head should be excluded as a criteria, it was clearly ignored and is not even a main criteria of the tournament itself)


  • 1st – Winner
  • 2nd – Runner up
  • SF – Semi-final
  • S8 – Super Eight (2007 only) (Not used as the table lists 5th-8th)
  • S6 – Super Six (1999–2003) (Not used as the table lists 5th-6th)
  • QF – Quarter-finals (1996, 2011-2015)
  • GP – Group - First round
  • Q – Qualified

As TP intent to show the country result in each tournament, I would rename it to "Teams' results" and believe this should be an exact specific table showing results as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and onwards. As the ICC doesn't provide an official tournament final standings positions and there is no third place match, the final standings could be determined by using a simple criteria of first most points, then better run rate.

- the TO has as criteria Teams are sorted by best performance, then total number of wins, then total number of games, then by alphabetical order., assuming that "best performance" is the table's column "best result" (perhaps we should leave no room for assumptions and have both the column name and the criteria with the same name, let's say best performance), we have:

  • Canada 8th
  • Netherlands 11th
  • UAE 11th
  • Bermuda 16th
  • Namibia 14th
  • Scotland 12th
  • East Africa 8th

That create some major issues, firstly if these countries have an exact final standing position, why they are not showed on TP (which only list them with a generic GP)?

Secondly, it comes in complete contradiction of the performances from Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Ireland which in this same table (TO) is showed as a generic Super Six and Super 8, while on TP we have Zimbabwe with specific 9th, 5th and 6th; Bangladesh as 7th and Ireland as 8th.

If that is not enough of a crossover between the two tables, here it comes, thirdly it seems that in order to determine Canada, Netherlands, UAE, Bermuda, Namibia, Scotland and East Africa's specific tournament position the following criteria was used: "The number of wins followed by Run-rate is the criteria for determining the rankings till the 1987 World Cup." and "The number of points followed by, head to head performance and then Net Run-rate is the criteria for determining the rankings for the World Cups from 1992 onwards."... can you guess where this criteria comes from? Indeed from the other table (TP).

Fourthly, those with some knowledge of the tournament, perhaps might think that an 8th finish (let's say East Africa in 1975) out of 8 participating teams is as low as finish 16th out of 16 teams (like Bermuda in 2007). But one can rightly argue that mathematically 8th is higher than 16th. So following TO stated criteria (Teams are sorted by best performance, then total number of wins, then total number of games, then by alphabetical order.), why are Namibia (14th), Scotland (12th) and East Africa (8th) not above Bermuda (16th)?

I believe the TO table should be more generic (listing only Champions, Runner-up, Semifinalist, Super Six, Super Eight/Quarter-finalist and Group stage) and leave the TP be more specific about the result, this should solve many of the contradictions present right now.

If TO table becomes more generic, Canada, Netherlands, UAE, Bermuda, Namibia, Scotland, East Africa would be grouped together as Group stage, leaving total number of wins, then total number of games, then alphabetical order to sort their positions on the table.

It would be great to hear your thoughts as another world cup is coming to an end soon, and soon these tables will be updated. I hope you understand the matter, looking forward to hear your comments / ideas / opinions.

Thanks, (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Partial Support: I greatly acknowledge your taking out time. This matter has been over my head for quite a few times. This contradiction is because of the uneven format of world cup over the years. It has changed a lot from the concept of Super 8s to Knockout stages of quarterfinals and semifinals. There must be a uniformity in the content, but that is hard to achieve when you don't have the same thing throughout. This is the reason why I don't fully support this. But, the concept of using 1st, 2nd.... 7th, 8th has not been applied on both the tables. In case of Super 8s or quarters, we can't do anything, but we can surely either mention Group stage on both the tables, or the positions 12th, 13th and so on, on the TP table too.--Kashish Arora (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kashish Arora: Much appreciate your feedback. I share your view that the uneven format of the tournament makes it difficult to have uniformity in the content (as we can determine 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th positions at Super Six / Eight formats but not in a quarterfinal format). I certainly think that by mentioning only Group stage on both tables would create an uniformity within the table which will clear many issues. -- (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I also agree that 10th out of 12 or 13th out of 14 doesn't really matter (some of them were worked out retrospectively anyway I believe?). I would support just calling it Group Stage, and then using wins or win %age or alphabetical order as the tiebreaker criteria for who goes higher. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Thank you very much for the input. It really seems calling it Group Stage is the way to go on the "overview" table. -- (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Right. Mentioning group stage will be better. Even there is no guarantee of how many teams have had played or will play in the future (a proposal was to drop total teams to ten). It won't work if we mention position 11th, 12th etc. It is surely better to mention group stage.--Kashish Arora (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kashish Arora: Ok, I propose the change to be made. I'm updating the table and will make it available shortly. -- (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015 (Results "Overview table"[edit]

As the article is now protected, following this page's discussion above (content No. 45 - Contradictions between "Teams' performances" and "Overview" tables), by renaming the best results from 8th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 16th to Group Stage (and following the table's criteria "Teams are sorted by best performance, then total number of wins, then total number of games, then by alphabetical order") this section as of today's stats should look as below. Please note I have also updated the stats for Bangladesh and India which were not up to date. I appreciate if you could make the change.


Thank you -- (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC) (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Another user added this. Thank you for your contribution. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302, yup. I just did this and was about to answer this edit request that an edit conflict popped up.--Kashish Arora (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kashish Arora: @Joseph2302: Thank you both, for working out on this matter together, your contribution was extremely valuable! Also appreciate for updating the table. -- (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2015 - Update Tournament records table[edit]


In order to keep the "Tournament records" table up to date, could you please make the following updates:

- Batting, highest score - New Zealand Martin Guptill v West Indies |237* (2015)

- Team, highest win % - Australia 74% (Played 82, Won 60)

Thank you (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed Thank you for noticing. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2015 - Main individual and team records updates[edit]

Hello, there has been some new updates on records at the Main individual and team records table. Could you kindly make the following changes?

  • Batting
Highest average (min. 20 inns.) South Africa AB de Villiers 63.52 (20072015)


  • Team
Highest win % Australia Australia 75% (Played 84, Won 62)


Thank you very much-- (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, I've updated them, and added those sources to the table. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2015 - Main individual and team records (part 2) - most consecutive wins[edit]

Hello, just noticed something on Main individual and team records, it's regarding Australia's 34 most consecutive wins. Using cricinfo as reference (;filter=advanced;orderby=start;size=100;spanmax2=20+mar+2011;spanmin2=23+May+1999;spanval2=span;team=2;template=results;trophy=12;type=team;view=results) to look at the time when the streak was made, they have gone 34 matches "unbeaten" (32 wins, 1 tie and 1 no-result), but that's different than 34 "consecutive wins". They won 25 straight matches, had a no-result, and won the following 2 matches (which gives us a total of 27 consecutive wins). Therefore the record should stand at 27 (not 34).

Thanks again-- (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Yes, it was 34 unbeaten, but only 27 matches in a row won (ignoring N/R). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cricket World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cricket World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cricket World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Cricket Records - Records - World Cup - Result summary - ESPN Cricinfo". Cricinfo.