Wikipedia

Talk:2023 Cricket World Cup/Archive 1

< Talk:2023 Cricket World Cup
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Batagur baska in topic Importance
Archive 1

Requested move 20 July 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago42 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Even though for different reasons, consensus is to stick with current naming. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


– Criket World Cup's official name was ICC Cricket World Cup but in recent time ICC has disambiguated the tournament from Women's World Cup as ICC Men's Cricket World Cup along with its qualifying tournaments like ICC Men's Cricket World Cup League. And the existing articles are also inconsistent, half have ICC and half of them don't. Other sources also says such..1, 2. This is also consistent with the T20 World Cup articles, viz. ICC Men's T20 World Cup, 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, 2019 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Qualifier, History of the ICC Men's T20 World Cup, 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, List of ICC Men's T20 World Cup records, List of ICC Men's T20 World Cup centuries etc. Along with that I want to bring to your attention that when the T20 articles were moved it was also discussed here. Drat8sub (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: The page move of Cricket World Cup was undone after the page moves were requested. Otherwise, Cricket World Cup would be my first article move request rather than 2023 Cricket World Cup as article 1. Drat8sub (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose on the 2023 Cricket World Cup, as it's the only Cricket World Cup in that year, and is currently consistent with all other 50 over World Cups. I'm ambivalent on the rest of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 2023 Cricket World Cup is not official name, the article should have official name. Secondly, last year same thing happened with T20 world Cup, when the logo and article names were not matching. More than that, the Cricket World Cup articles are so inconsistent, some have ICC and some don't. It's now need of the hour that we must chnage the names and make them more consistent with the official name. Drat8sub (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope, WP:COMMONNAME applies. This has beem discussed many times before. For the T20 world cups, it's completely different scenario, as men and women play in the same year. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Same age old reasoning. I don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies here, since it has been officially renamed by ICC for all its events (not only 2023 ICC Men's Cricket World Cup but for all ICC events 1) in gender specific way since 2019 T20. Since now the governing body are officially using gender specific tournament names, I wonder why there is a need to keep ambiguation in wikipedia articles. One can see the website https://www.icc-cricket.com/ now updated with "ICC events" (navigation bar on the top) in gender specific way. Secondly, for T20 move clealry says, "if one was a new reader, what would one require as a title to explain this event. This is a situation that requires WP:IGNORE." These article are highly confusing for any newbie as evidently, it has been well observed that cricket article specially articles related to ICC tournaments are very inconsistent, some are written with ICC and some are not. The same thing was discussed there too at T20 move. I don't think this confusing article naming is helping here. So once for all, these should be renamed properly according to the official names. It was smoothly done for T20 articles and can be done for World Cup articles too. Drat8sub (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose no evidence shown that the COMMONNAME has changed. All refs given above are Primary Sources. Spike 'em (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
And a quick quote from WP:NAMECHANGES: If reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well Spike 'em (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Cricket website/portal/magazine: ESPNCricinfo, Cricbuzz, Sportstar, The Cricketer magazine, Cricket.com.au News website: BBC, The Gaurdian, SMH, Live Mint, DNA India, NDTV, Business World, India Today, The Hindu, RepublicTV etc. Reliable sources are indeed recognising the gender specific name and are also introducing in their writing. Drat8sub (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Half of those are using a direct quote from the head of ICC referring to "men's World Cup" rather than using it themselves in normal reporting, and only 1 refers to "ICC Men's World Cup", which is your suggestion of a name for the article. As an example, the SMH article also says while the Cricket World Cup scheduled for February and March 2023, which is along the same lines of the name of the article on wikipedia. Spike 'em (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
RS are surely using gender specific names since it has been changed last year for all ICC events. ESPNcricinfo writes The board has also shifted the 2023 Men's World Cup from the February-March..... 1, CricBuzz writes ICC Men's Cricket World Cup 2023 will be held in India in October-November 2023.... 2, The Cricketer writes The 50-over Men’s World Cup will still be held in India as scheduled in 2023... 3 or BBC writes The ICC also announced that the 2023 50-over men's World Cup in India 4, The Guardian writes India...have to wait for Australia to go first but have been confirmed as hosts for the 2023 50-over men’s World Cup... 5 , Outlook says With 2019 ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup Complete, The Focus... 6, Mint The rest of the schedule will be as follows: ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup 2023 will be held in India 7, NDTV The ICC announced the postponement of series nine of the ICC Men's Cricket World Cup League 2 and the second ICC Men's Cricket World Cup Challenge League B.... 8, Republic TV ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup 2023 has been postponed by a few months 9. I don't see any quote in those RS, wonder what you are talking about. Secondly, it does not matter if some RS are using quote or not, they could have used indirect speech and could have just said Cricket world Cup. But they used it as they recognise the name. First you asked RS, now you are demanding something which is not defined in guidelines. In simple words it's not going against NAMECHANGES seeing the above example. Reputed RS like ESPN, Cricbuzz, BBC, Gaurdian, Outlook, NDTV, Live Mint, The Cricketer etc are using the name. Drat8sub (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
How many of the sources use your suggested title of "ICC Men's Cricket World Cup"? Spike 'em (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I wonder, why you can't see. All sources are showing gender specific names. Drat8sub (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
From cricinfo coverage of an ODI today This game mark's the beginning of ICC's brand new ODI League that aims to identify seven teams that join India at the 2023 World Cup. No "ICC" or "Men's" here Spike 'em (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above. Maybe revist the 2023 CWC closer to the time, if needed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the suggestion, but Oppose. The official name is fairly irrelevant, what matters is the commonly recognised and used name. Despite the sources listed including laboriously the word 'men's', it is still fairly unusual to include the word 'men's' when normally describing it. In real life, I've never heard anyone refer to it that way, it's just 'the World Cup'. It is different to the T20 WCs as there were due to be both men's and women's events in 2020 (before corona struck), so a way of distinguishing them was required, but there is no ambiguity in the phrase '2023 Cricket World Cup'. Mmitchell10 (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
First not irrelevant, when official name used as gender specific and RS use gender specific names, it become more relevant, it satisfies all guidelines. "I've never heard anyone refer to it that way" is called POV. T20 world cup thing was not moved due to your logic mentioned above, go to discussion and find out. And yes there is ambiguity in keeping just Cricket World Cup for Men's tournament, try to persuade a teenager or a newbie why Women's World Cup taken in gender specific way and why Men's World Cup is not. I as a teenager find it highly confusing why such is used in these article. Since, the introduction of Women's World Cup the name become ambiguous and thus ICC changed. Now when ICC themselves disambiguated all the events in gender specific names irrespective of both events happening in a single year or not, and RS also using them, I don't see keeping ambiguity in keeping article as Cricket World Cup for Men's tournament. Drat8sub (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not true that 'RS use gender specific names' - the truth is that it's a mixed picture - some RS do, that you've identified, but there are also plenty of RS that don't, to give two examples: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Daily Telegraph. It's also not true that 'Since, the introduction of Women's World Cup the name become ambiguous and thus ICC changed' - the women's WC is actually older than the men's, with the first women's WC in 1973, and the first men's WC in 1975. No one seems to have struggled with ambiguity for the last 45 years. The ICC's name change is nothing to do with ambiguity (despite what they might say), but to do with gender equality. Which is fine, but WP is interested in commonly used names, and as there is still a mixed picture in the RS there's no clear case for change. Mmitchell10 (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope, not correct. The first ICC Women's World Cup was in 2005. Before that all tournament was organised by another body calld as IWCC (International Women's Cricket Council) not a part of ICC.1. Women's international cricket became officially integrated with the men's game under the umbrella of the ICC after the eighth Women's World Cup in South Africa in 2005. 2. And Britannica does not count here, it was last updated in July 2019, 1 year back.3. The official changes are recent. And all major cricketing website like ESPNcricinfo, Cricbuzz, The cricketer, The Sportstar are using along with other news website. Such selective cases will be Cherrypicking. Drat8sub (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
"No one seems to have struggled with ambiguity for the last 45 years.", would be POV. How do you know that, who told you that no one struggled with, how many people are artive in cricket project of wikipedia, minuscule to the cricket fan all over the world, just because no body raised issues here since the first article created here, does not mean it was not a problem. I am struggling and confused about why men's tournament are not taken with gender specific and but women's are. It has been questioned several times and that's why ICC changed all its tournamnets' name where both women and men participate. And irony is that Cricket is called as "gentlemen's game" which is highly patriarchal term in itself. So, yes problem is there and it's serious for sure. And ICC is trying to rectify so far they can. Drat8sub (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Other than discussion, one can go through these if interested, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. This artciles show how women has to prove that cricket is not for men only and not a gentlemen's game at all. Drat8sub (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
What had this to do with the article titles? With all this talk of patriarchy and random bolding, it seems you are attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Spike 'em (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I have written "if interested", cut my lines. And ofcorse the title has to do with patriarchal mindset when it's called women's world cup as women's but the men's world cup as the World Cup. And you are correct its about gender inequality and patriarchal mindset is the major cause. Drat8sub (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment If you are going to sneak in a page move of one of the most important articles in WP:CRIC half way through, I'd expect you to mention that clearly to label it properly. (Apologies, I guess it is may be a bot that does that). Spike 'em (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Where did I sneak in a page move? Did I hide anything?? I don't get it, please explain. Drat8sub (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The last 3 listed weren't there originally. And therefore makes my original misleading. I oppose these new suggestions too. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
It's for consistency so that all articles have similar name with the page move. One cannot keep some articles as official names and some without official names. It would be highly inconsistent, where as already these articles are inconsistent as half have ICC and half of them does not. This very inconsistency gives more weight that it's high time we should change the names properly, otherwise it's very confusing. Drat8sub (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: the main Cricket World Cup article was also added after I reverted another undiscussed page move. Spike 'em (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Drat8sub We could make them all consistent by removing ICC Men's from all articles, which would satisfy WP:CONCISE as well. Also the men's and women's T20 World Cups often happen in the same year, whereas the 50 Over World Cups don't, so no need to add Men's to them. And we agreed against ICC in the name many times before (see WT:CRIC archives). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually the moves are not labelled correctly: the 4(?) pages you added later do not have RM notices on them, and have not been picked up by the BOT. Could you sort that out please? Spike 'em (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the bot did not picked them. But I don't think its a big problem here, anyone who wants to comment have to visit the discussion here anyway, can easily see other articles. Secondly, you are much experienced than me, I really don't know how to rectify this, it will helpful if you can do it on my behalf. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
it is a problem because people who watch or visit those pages won't know thay there is an RM in progressSpike 'em (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, fixed it, added the required template. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, on Wikipedia we use common names as a rule for the names of articles, not official names. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Commonames guidelines does not apply here. Please care to read what has already discussed above, the guideline is already refuted and NameChange guidelines apply here. Drat8sub (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
It is not up to you to say that guidelines don't apply. One cycle of news reports based heavily on statements by the ICC is not enough to say that there should be a change in my opinion. Spike 'em (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Drat8sub WP:COMMONNAME is a Wikipedia guideline, and applies everywhere in article space. And stop harasssing every user who disagrees with you. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
First, to refute an argument is not harassment. And I did not ping anyone, if anyone differ can refute or ignore. You should not tell anyone to comment what or not. In that case you are doing the same. One cycle of news report or two cycle, no such thing is in guidelines. It simply says if the reliable sources using it or not. A guidelines applies when the things written in the guidelines follows or not, to me Commonnames does not apply as the guidelines does not satisfy in this case and well refuted above with RS. Drat8sub (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Telling people to "read the AfD properly" just because they don't agree with you is harassment. Any self-respecting editor would read the whole AfD before commenting, but you're assuming they haven't simply because they don't agree with you. I will take this to WP:ANI if you keep making snarky remarks every time someone disagrees with you. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Indifferent, Doesn't really matter I feel. Both ways, it works. Arka 92 01:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cricket World Cup which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Language is rough in lead?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Spike‘em:, You didn't explained why you reverted. My edit was better with better wording? Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I did explain :spag [spelling,punctuation and grammar] is better in this version (the one before you edited).
This is not an improvement to the article: 2023 ICC Cricket world cup is the upcoming Cricket World Cup that will takes place in India. International Cricket Council (ICC) will organise it in October–November in 2023.Spike 'em (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I also think that the "See also"s you added were excessive. Spike 'em (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

List of venues

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

When I removed it, the list of venues claimed 9 venues, listed 10 and was sourced to a very low quality article that said Since the 13th edition will take place in India, we expect big stadiums to feature in the list...Given below are the ICC cricket world cup 2023 stadiums list: and listed 8 stadiums. Given the speculative nature of the list, I don't think it can be possibly reliable. If someone can find a better / official source of venues then happy to reinstate the list. Spike 'em (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I have removed again, as the list was again speculative and was not sourced to a WP:RS. Please only reinstate this section when something is actually confirmed, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Spike 'em (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Where are SL, WI and RSA

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is the page not mentioning anything about qualification of Sri Lanka, West Indies and South Africa? Parag Sabnis (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The situation so far with qualification can be found at 2023 Cricket World Cup qualification. As the qualification process continues, the main page will be updated when appropriate. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Champions

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Indian Cricket team is listed as the Champions of the tournament; But, not even the Qualification is over yet. It should be removed. KCCian24 (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Also what do they mean by saying 48th title? Parag Sabnis (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The recent vandalism has been reverted by another editor. You could have done so yourselves, but thank you both for pointing it out. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)-

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Pakistan will not take part in the ODI World Cup next year in India so change the status of Pakistan’s participation for the mean time.

https://www.geosuper.tv/amp/20334-indias-sports-minister-reacts-to-pcb-chairman-ramiz-rajas-statement. Geo Super is an official television channel dedicated to sports In Pakistan. 39.37.143.74 (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done. The source says Pakistan is threatening not to come to this cup if India doesn't come to the Asia cup in Pakistan. It does not say that Pakistan formally withdrew. --Mvqr (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

2011 logo is best 103.132.90.225 (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about the 2023 tournament, so we use that logo. Wikipedia is not a forum about the logos. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Stadium images

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Non-free images of stadia cannot be used under fair use in this article, as they violate WP:NFCC#1, since freely licenced images of all stadia exist. If people don't like the images being used, they need to find other freely licenced images of the ground (or take one, if you live nearby), not upload images they find on the Internet. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It is written that there was a 1996 world cup which is incorrect as it was 1995 39.33.152.117 (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"Qualified" is a word in the English language with a meaning - Neither South Africa or Ireland have qualified so neither should be listed. 110.33.28.251 (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

When schedule is announce officially

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

when schedule is announce officially of 2023 cwc 223.187.148.228 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

We are not the ICC, so we don't know. I would guess there's a reason why it's currently a draft (maybe related to India/Pakistan issues?). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Warm up venues

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are 10 World Cup venues: [1] The warm up venues are covered in a separate section, and shouldn't be covered in the main World Cup venues section, as they are not venues for the actual event. The ICC clearly listed there being 10 venues for the event itself, not 12. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, there are 10 location where actual WC will be held. Tesla car owner (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Request due to protection

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Jaibhageria can you just add a thing from https://crictoday.com/cricket/daily-cricket-news/wankhede-stadium-to-lose-hosting-rights-of-icc-world-cup-2023-semi-final-if-pakistan-make-it-to-the-knockout-stage-heres-why/ that says, "The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) requested that none of their World Cup games be held in Mumbai due to security concerns. In response, the ICC and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) jointly decided". In knockout section. 103.27.142.111 (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The number of matches in Pune is 5 and the number of matches in Hyderabad is 3 Jaibhageria (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Upgrading of World Cup stadiums

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This section seems overly detailed on the specific upgrades being made. It's not useful information to say the corporate boxes and toilets have been changed- who cares? The fact they were given money is relevant, upgrades that may impact the actual cricket matches such as upgrading floodlights are relevant. Things like fixing chairs and toilets is just standard stuff you'd expect a venue to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Western Hemisphere

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Perhaps under qualifying, an addition about the fact that due to the West Indies elimination, it is also the first World Cup without a team from the Western Hemisphere. 2600:4040:7E09:5400:E9FF:8A70:BFFA:E829 (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

No, because one this is unsourced. Also, England is mostly in the Western Hemisphere. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Apologies I guess I mean 'the Americas' or the New World. It's the same source obviously, if this is the first WC without West Indies. 2600:4040:7E09:5400:E9FF:8A70:BFFA:E829 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Warm-up matches venues

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do we really need a list of all of the venues for the warm-up matches? The warm-up matches aren't an important part of the actual World Cup, and so it seems like an overkill to cover the venues for them in so much detail- listing all the venues with a map Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2023

Latest comment: 10 months ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka have qualified for the CWC 2023. This should be added to the group stage table in the group stage section. Also, related information needs to be updated i.e in the qualification section. Shroomax (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This is also incorrect, as the 2023 Cricket World Cup Qualifier is still ongoing, and there are enough matches left that nobody has qualified yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Well Sri Lanka have qualified now. And luckily we have a protection on this page so that we can incorrectly assign them to Qualifier 1. That would be the winner of the final that occurs in a few days. But whatever, set it up so it can't be fixed.165.12.252.106 (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree, and have fixed this. Absolutely ridiculous that this was incorrect information was left for so long, as people are just making up their interpretations of how the system works.... Joseph2302 (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Also noting that the actual ICC website future fixture list clearly lists them still as Qualifier 1 and Qualifier 2 (if you scroll through it). Seems pretty clear to me, but I wonder how long it will take someone to revert me to re-add this made up stuff. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
And all the fixture links being used as match sources also list the team as TBA not Sri Lanka e.g. [2]. Seems pretty conclusive to me, unless anyone can demonstrate that all these sources are wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
It's BAAACK (now they are Qualifier 2). And apparnetly Scotland are qualified enough to be named - WP:CRYSTAL stuff like this makes the sport look second rate. 12:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.28.251 (talk)
Fixed again, but this is ridiculously tedious. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Apparently, SL had been pre-assigned Qualifier 2, but this wasn't well publicised by the ICC.... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
SL and Netherlands have qualified FlyingF1j1an64 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2023

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

With a robust professional background as a cricket editor and article writer across various websites, I have honed my skills in crafting engaging and insightful cricket-related content over the years. My passion for cricket and extensive experience analyzing matches, profiling players, and understanding cricket strategies allow me to bring depth, precision, and unique perspectives into my writing. My ultimate aspiration is to leverage these competencies as a member of Wikipedia, contributing to the enriching repository of knowledge it offers and ensuring that cricket enthusiasts worldwide have access to accurate, comprehensive, and fascinating cricket insights. KalaChak (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
43.230.198.76 (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

wrong indian map

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Someone had added a map of India including all the disputed territories. I have changed it to the [[WP:NPOV]) map that shows these territories as disputed, as Wikipedia should not be making biased claims on this page about territory ownership. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Communications_from_government_of_India_to_Wikimedia_Foundation_regarding_content_about_maps_depicting_the_borders_of_India is clear: Wikipedia is not a subsidiary of the Indian government, and so should continue to use the map without Indian territorial claims. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Bangalore or Bengaluru?

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The main article is at Bangalore not Bengaluru, and this has been achieved after 12 RMs to try and move this to Bengaluru. As such, Bangalore is clearly the common name in English, so shouldn't we be using that on this article? Using Bengaluru instead of Bangalore seems like an Indian POV to me, the exact thing that the place article has been stopping. We shouldn't be overriding that naming consensus here by using a different name. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Australia squad

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Australia haven't named their final squad yet for the 2023 Cricket World Cup. A final squad is 15 players, Australia have named 17 players in a provisional squad, as per [3]. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes Joseph, I haven't saw anywhere on internet about Australia's final squad for 2023 Cricket World Cup. Fade258 (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Ticket issue

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi @Joseph:, lots of news outlets including NDTV reported that, fans are finding it difficult to book WC tickets specially of 14th Nov, Venkatesh Prasad also appealed to BCCI on it. Many fans criticized the booking app Book My Show and the BCCI, I included it but a admin User: Black Kite don't want it here. I want your take, should we write about it here or not? [4] Tesla car owner (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:Controversy section is clear: don't add separate sections for controversies or criticisms. One or two lines of summarising text integrated into the article appropriately would be fine. Multiple paragraphs of complaining is POV and unencyclopedic. Also, the level of English in that section was almost unreadable. Finally, next time, try pinging the correct person, not some other random person called Joseph... Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
You was against the detailed mentioned of that fiasco, now its removed by an editor, no mention how BCCI harrassing fans for tickets, finally many editors thrown them under the carpet. Tesla car owner (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Today Maharashtra's one of the biggest newspaper also wrote about it, still you stop to write about it? Tesla car owner (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Marketing

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is "Trophy tour" part is encyclopedic? Do FIFA WC WP articles have this king of info in the articles, if not then we should remove it. And if others want keep it, then - "Anthem, Mascot, trophy tour" should contain in 1 section. Tesla car owner (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Anthem & Mascot along with Opening Ceremony should be moved to 2023 Cricket World Cup opening ceremony. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
There wasn't an opening ceremony, it was replaced by something else. As such, a separate article for the non existent opening ceremony should not be created ever. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I put all of the marketing stuff into a single section, updated and trimmed where necessary. Desertarun (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hosting rights

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article lack the info - how, when ICC awarded hosting rights to the BCCI? Other Sport's WC article usually has this info. Tesla car owner (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Error in the prize table

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The teams number in the winner of the league matches row should read 45 (not 10). 2600:4041:54BA:5100:6DB4:36D5:37D6:4815 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2023

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

1. Adding summary and weekwise summary like last world cup, as detailed fixtures arent there with scores of batsmen,etc for group stage 2. Opening ceremony cancelled. Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Andumé (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2023

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

1. Please Add a Group Stage Summary and a weekwise Summary section as was done in the 2019 Cricket World Cup wikipedia page. This is imp because the detailed grp stage matches are similar as of the 2019 one with a summary (same format in all aspects of these 2 editions)

2. Please add in marketing section that a google doodle was done by Google to commemmorate the opening of the world cup and cite it. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Andumé (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Summary

Latest comment: 7 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The summary should be below the fixtures. Then the scores can be easily accessible. Kumarpramit (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The fixtures/results shouldn't be in this article at all as they are listed in 2023 Cricket World Cup group stage and don't need to be duplicated here, bloating the article... but if they remain here, the prose summary should come first. However, it should be an actual summary of the group stage, covering only the most important points, and not detailing every match result with added stats (games like Pak v Ned probably don't even need mentioning). wjematherplease leave a message... 18:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed... Fixtures/results shouldn't be here. Only the summary is needed here. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Disagree. Desertarun (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The fixtures should be here, as they are key information about the tournament. The 2019 article, which is a GA, has summarised results, and the article would be worse and incomplete without them. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The group table and prose summary provide the only key information regarding the group stage; the prose giving context to any significant individual matches and events. Most matches are not key to the competition and so do not need listing in their entirety, or even summarising, when they are detailed in the child article linked at the head of the section. The extremely bloated group stage summary (which should actually be in the child article) and duplicated results in the 2019 article only demonstrates that some GA reviews leave a lot be be desired. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

CU, CE

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The 2nd para in lead should be ce, it seems bit confusing that is All teams gone through QF process, qualifier held in Zim? Tesla car owner (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Statistics sections

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Player of the match" table seems like a WP:NOTSTATS overkill, it's sourced only to ESPNcricinfo database section, and doesn't seem like it's needed at all. It's also ridiculous to have most runs/ most wickets tables after 1 game, at least wait until teams have played a sensible number of matches (5-8 matches), the stats based on 1 or 2 matches each are meaningless. Per WP:BRD, do not re-add them without a consensus here to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur, the player of the match section needs deleting, it is failing notstats. Desertarun (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Players of the match are detailed in 2023 Cricket World Cup statistics and 2023 Cricket World Cup group stage. It isn't significant enough to be duplicated here. As for other stats; we shouldn't even have a section until there have been sufficient matches to make the stats meaningful. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

Latest comment: 7 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Wanna create an additional simplified points table like used in Tamil wikipedia of the same page. Vishwa Sundar (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)



I meant to create this type of table and add it in group stage..--Vishwa Sundar (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Opponent
Team
   Afghanistan   Australia   Bangladesh   England   India   Netherlands   New Zealand   Pakistan   South Africa   Sri Lanka
  Afghanistan Lost by 6 wickets
  Australia Lost by 6 wickets
  Bangladesh Lost by 137 runs
  England Lost by 9 wickets
  India
  Netherlands Lost by 99 runs Lost by 81 runs
  New Zealand
  Pakistan Won by 6 wickets
  South Africa Won by 102 runs
  Sri Lanka

--Vishwa Sundar (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  • This already exists on 2023 Cricket World Cup group stage, but is not needed on the general article 2023 Cricket World Cup. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. I was mislead by "points table". Anyway, I concur with what Joseph said. Since we have child articles, this main one should contain only a summary of the main points from those articles. Also, and frankly, there is enough duplication between these articles already without adding to it. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Unlock me

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

admin please unlock me Pavankumarponugoti3 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The page is extended-confirmed protected, so only people who have more than 500 edits (and an account older than 30 days) can edit- this was done due to repeated editing problems. Your account only has 62 edits, so won't be able to edit this page, if you have suggestions for improvements, please feel free to suggest on this talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
dear sir, as fresher I want to gain some experience by editing cricket pages. I hope this cricket season will help me a lot. Pavankumarponugoti3 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Pavankumarponugoti3 You will need to find other pages to contribute to until you gain the necessary experience to directly contribute here. That said, if there's a change that needs made to this page, you can request the edit here on the talk page; flag it with {{Edit extended-protected}} to get the attention of a qualified editor to assist. —C.Fred (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Venues

Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Template:OSM Location map Caption should be shorten to only state "Venues of the 2023 Cricket World Cup" and mark descriptions should be removed as they are already mentioned in the surrounding table. And a mark image no. from the map should added near the each venue's name, as it would make it easier to see all the venues at once. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Venues should also be sorted on a same order in both map and table. Now, Map sorts them in a specific order while, the table sorts them in a Alphabetical order based on the venue's location. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The map needs to be functional in full-screen mode, so the labels and descriptions need to remain. However, having the map in the middle of the table is very unfriendly for readers. It would be much better if the table and map were separate, as they were previously. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Map in the middle is almost certainly a MOS:ACCESS issue, similar to nested tables. People should be considering the readability of articles, not just how they like something. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Map colours

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What do the two different colours on the map for the venues signify? 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:A934:5D7D:6FFD:A296 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

They meant nothing significantly, They were just WP:DECORATIVE. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong Indian map chosen

Latest comment: 7 months ago10 comments5 people in discussion

It is not Wikipedia's job to side with one nation or another (see npov). The map with the venues currently violates the guideline of neutrality. It disingenuously depicts portions of India as undisputed regions of China even though they are clearly internationally disputed. Please use a neutral map. One may use something like [[5]]. 103.66.54.201 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, the current map is a pro-Indian bias, we shouldn't be following India's declared borders on disputed territories. Someone with better template knowledge, we need to fix the image to a non-biased image e.g. File:India map en.svg. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I give you the courtesy of assuming you know how to read the other user's comments. But you agree and then you say the maps are pro-Indian. These sorts of sarcastic remarks really don't help in a serious conversation. Please change your attitude. 103.52.220.77 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I've changed it back to the version that was being used previously. I'm fairly certain that the one that was being used was also showing parts of Kashmir as Indian as well - and that's bound to be subject to some form of automatic sanction. Some things might need changing around - there's obviously been a tonne of editing done on this article in October. I'll see if I can do a check but others might spot something else. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I thank you for using a neutral map. 103.52.220.77 (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Image, depicting Qualified teams also uses a map of India that was similar, to the map I used in the the case of Venues. So I think since it is used widely used across Wikipedia, It should be raised commonly. Editor8220 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I'll look at that tomorrow. Until then, this discussion is very much still in action so I shall revert your addition of the map that the IP editor above raised issues about and replace it with the version that's been used in a large number of articles about Indian cricket. I'd be very careful at this point if I were you. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Just because other Indian editors have used other pro-Indian maps on other articles, that doesn't make them acceptable here (WP:OSE). There was a consensus on English Wikipedia recently that despite Narenda Modi trying to force the world to use pro-Indian maps claiming all the disputed territory as theirs, English Wikipedia will not be forced to use them. An WP:NPOV map showing disputed regions as disputed is the only acceptable map for an NPOV encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I should like to point out that the language and tone consistently being used by Mr. Joseph is in gross violation of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith principle. Neither Narendra Modi nor the ethnicity of the other editors of wikipedia is really relevant here. 103.52.220.77 (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I also strongly support changing the qualifiers map on this article to a NPOV map. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Bowling

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

add bowling economy rate 113.11.108.40 (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
14.97.127.118 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

1

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, after WikiWomen Camp in Delhi I attended the Aus-Ned match and took a few pictures. Maybe these can be added to the article?

Best, Ciell (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Ciell (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is fairly well illustrated with images and tables right now, so I don't see a place where these photos would be useful. I thought they might be used to illustrate some matches in the 2023 Cricket World Cup group stage article, but looking back at previous pages on the topic (e.g. 2019 Cricket World Cup group stage, 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A, 2011 Cricket World Cup Group A, etc.), it seems that the matches are traditionally unillustrated, and adding photos would mess up the formatting, so I don't think that's a good idea either. Liu1126 (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Group progression table

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This has been removed multiple times, with various views being expressed about it in edit summaries. I tend to agree with the last removal (at least) that this doesn't belong in *this* article. We have a whole article on the group stage of the competition. The table belongs there. Arguably so do the results of matches fwiw, but I won't remove all of those unless there's an overwhelming view to do so.

Does anyone have an argument that can justify adding the table to *this* article rather than or as well as the group stage one? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Progression table is not needed here, as this main article should be a summary, doesn't need that level of detail. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The group progression table needs to stay gone. The essential info we give is the points table and the list of results, anything else is non useful. Desertarun (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Sports articles attract this kind of fan-invented cruft that cannot be found in most (if not all) quality reliable sources and doesn't add anything encyclopedic. However, if it has to be anywhere this isn't the place when we have a child article for the group stage. Also, as I have said above, the existence of this group stage article means that we should only have a summary of it here and the detail (including fixtures/results) should be there. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I rather think there's a lot of OR contained in these myself - and have challenged them previously. I don't tend to get very far with that though. It's certainly synthesis at best. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Group stage points table

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The Group-stage points-table dosent seem proper with Green-background and looks as if Afg, Aus, Ban and Eng already have made it to the top4/semis. --106.51.179.131 (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The present table in the article doesn't look logical at all. And as its mentioned at the bottom that top 4 teams reach semis, you can consider this suggestion guys:

Pos Team
 Pld W L NR Pts NRR
1   Afghanistan 0 0 0 0 0 —
2   Australia 0 0 0 0 0 —
3   Bangladesh 0 0 0 0 0 —
4   England 0 0 0 0 0 —
5   India (H) 0 0 0 0 0 —
6   Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 —
7   New Zealand 0 0 0 0 0 —
8   Pakistan 0 0 0 0 0 —
9   South Africa 0 0 0 0 0 —
10   Sri Lanka 0 0 0 0 0 —
Source: ICC
Rules for classification: 1) Points; 2) Wins; 3) Net run rate; 4) Results of games between tied teams; 5) Pre-tournament seeding
(H) Host

The top four teams will qualify for the Semi-finals.


--106.51.179.131 (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Be bold Tesla car owner (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Most competitions' pages retain the shading before qualification, then denote qualifiers with a bold (Q) Local Potentate (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The logic is that the "qualification" refers to the tournament structure (which doesn't change) while the "status" attached to each team with the letters (Q) etc, refers to how those teams are going (and hence will change as we go along). That is why the qualification column should say "advance" (as the tournament structure says who will advance) rather than "advanced" (as it is the team that will advance). The really has been the methodology across other tournaments for quite some time - IIRC WC2006 was the last time the FIFA World Cup used "udpating shading" (and at the time used coloured line dividers in the way we use shading now). 110.33.28.251 (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Teamwise context section

Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I've let Pharaoh496 know that I intended to remove the long collapsed section they've added three times now and would start a discussion about it here.

I have concerns that the section is too long and rather repetitive. If we can source things fully, then a short paragraph or, perhaps, two placing the competition in context for teams **might** be helpful (but I'm not sure is necessary at all). So, maybe something like "India approached the tournament as hosts with an expectation of at least reaching the knockout out stages,<cite><cite> whilst defending champions England were expected to challenge for the title again<cite><cite> ... Afghanistan, who had qualified automatically for the tournament for the first time,<cite> ..." etc... But I'm not sure it needs even that. Teamwise context as a subhead seems tricky as well - my spell checked picks up teamwise for starters. Views? Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this content is wp:undue. It is too long and not focused on the subject of the article. Form guides like this are mostly irrelevant because sport is so unpredictable. I don't see much value in adding anything back. Desertarun (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

[ Pharaoh496 here] [I cant reply for some reason] So my point of view was to provide users an experience that they can have a complete view of pre-tourament context - I had made sure it was collapsed. Since its collapsed, length shouldnt be much of an issue so we could either let it be or maybe I create a new page for it? It was deleted earlier as it had no references, I had added them in the last edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh496 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add the revised targets for the scores of the matches that were shortened due to rain. For example, the India-South Africa match, the Pakistan-New Zealand match and so on. 2406:7400:98:C0BD:52D8:701A:F42:AC00 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: Those details are already available on the child article 2023 Cricket World Cup group stage. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

With regards to the broadcasting, in South Africa, SABC are broadcasting South African games only https://www.sabcsport.com/cricket/news/how-can-i-watch-the-proteas-matches-at-the-2023-cricket-world-cup-1 and Australia's Channel Nine are only broadcasting select games https://www.nineforbrands.com.au/media-release/icc-cricket-world-cup-live-and-free-on-nine/ Nlsir2904 (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, that broadcasting table is a mess anyway. Would be better off not having any of it, as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Yep. A summary in prose of the major broadcasters (maybe) and then delete it would be my preferences. In just about every case - on every franchise league as well. Maybe a centralised discussion? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
It also, fwiw, seems to be pretty much a copyvio of the one in the source listed straight above it doesn't it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  Done. Removed the table and replaced it with a bare-bones summary. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Semi final Australia vs South Africa is confirmed. That can be given in the page in knockout section. Wbpollanalyst (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Already done. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

semi finals edit request on 8 November 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Anil mukesh (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  Not done – empty request Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the request was to redo the thing you did in the previous note (that is, note the 2nd semi is South Africa v Australia). Given all the other matches default to alphabetical order prior to the start, the fact we don't know who is 2nd and who is 3rd is pretty irrelevant to whether we can add this information in (and, I note, you did put in in under the 7 November request) 110.33.28.251 (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

List of umpires and officials

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've removed this after it was restored - I didn't do the initial removal. Given that we appear to have an article just about officials we don't need to list them all here do we? It seems reasonable to do a very quick summary and then direct people to that article. Of course, if anyone wants to propose either a selective merge or an AfD for the article about officials then I might be minded to support that. Given that we have similar articles about other world cups that might need bundling. And I would imagine we need to be doing similar things on the WC article and referring to the main article if we decide to keep them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Rearrange map section

Latest comment: 6 months ago20 comments6 people in discussion

The map section needs rearranging so the pictures don't circle the Indian map, it looks hideous and I can think of no other WP pages that use this formatting. It would be better to have the Indian map at the top and 2 columns for the individual stadiums below. I could have a go at doing this, but does anyone else already know how to do this? Desertarun (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

2019 Cricket World Cup & 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup had a similar format with venues surrounding the map in a single table. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
So does 2015, 2007, 1979 & inaugural Cricket World Cups. Furthermore, 2015 Cricket World Cup's format very much reassembles with how venues are displayed on 2023. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
So other articles are also bad - we should fix them too, not persist in making life difficult for readers. 14:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree. I find these "funky" map layouts very difficult to use and on mobile screens they prove difficult to read. We can - and must really - do better. I'm not sure if the people who create these sections appreciate that people don't all view wikipedia using the same skin or with the same browser or browser window width.
After Desertarun moved the map out of the grid, I've floated it to the right - in general I tend to think images work better on the right in most cases. Then, with this diff, I reverted to an old version of the table and then removed the images, which seem unnecessary to me in the first instance (all of them anyway) and create table width issues in general. They also seem to continually be subject to copyright violations as people upload their "own" images that they "created" quite regularly.
I don't think this is perfect. But it does resolve some of the issues. Criticise it. Do something better and accessible with it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
This is greatly improved. Our readers shouldn't be confused with formatting and placement issues like it was before. Desertarun (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I was about to put the image of the Modi stadium back in to the article but, per my comments above, I'm fairly certain that an identical images has been deleted previously as a copyvio - I'm 99% certain I've seen it before. As a result, the most recent "own work" upload from July 2023 isn't one I'm happy using in an article such as this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I have made a rearrangement with the previous format, Now it is easily readable in both Desktop and Mobile view modes. I think information surrounding the map is more comfortable to navigate rather than continously scrolling to the map above and down to the table below. Hope it helps. Editor8220 (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted it for now. In my view it makes it much harder to navigate on a mobile divice - I have to scroll horizontally using m.wiki. On a desktop view I can't find an example - using multiple skins for checking - of where I can't view all the information in one go. Perhaps you could summarise your testing of this and when it causes problems - we'll always need some scrolling in mobile, but horizontal scrolling is unacceptable. The funky map/table view also has the same issue with images and raises the danger of copyright issues with them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
There is only a small horizontal move required in the mobile view, But on the existing "table and map seperate" format a person has to go up and down between the map and table interrupted to have a cross check. Images i have adjusted their resoltion, copyright is not violated as original files are kept by commons on copyright standard. Editor8220 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Horizontal scrolling is much worse from a user perspective - this is basic web accessibility levels of stuff. Your version also has major accessibility issues in terms of presenting table data to screen readers, for example. You might also want to check how many times images have been removed from this article for copyright - and images of stadiums for these tables are a major cause. I think we'd be better off with the previous version and allow a day or two for other people to comment rather than you insisting that you're right and me insisting that I'm right. I will revert - but you're at 3RR now; if there's consensus to change - as there was above to change to the version with the map uncoupled from the table - then we change - I'll accept that. There isn't just now, just you making a suggestion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The Images of Stadiums if have a violation of copyright, would have been removed from Commons if so. All the images are also used in their respective articles of stadiums. Copyright of image is not a problem here. Now coming to horizontal scrolling, there are tons of articles with very long horizontal scroll in wikipedia, mine had only a 4cm scroll required. The previous arrangement, one has to go up and down between the table and map interruptedly. Editor8220 (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Edit warring and violating the WP:3RR rule isn't helping your cause. You shouldn't re-add this content without agreement here. Desertarun (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I have already given an explanation from the very first time. Editor8220 (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
You're quite correct that there are lots of articles which require horizontal scrolling. The standard response in those cases is, of course, to never even bother scrolling to read any of the content. And Other Stuff Exists. Vertical scrolling is, however, easy for users to do - they're doing it anyway to read the article. From a usability perspective it's completely normal. Fwiw, a 4cm scroll for me is around 75% of my available screen size - so the article is 175% of the width of my screen. I'm not reading that and there's fundamentally no advantage to scrolling up and down - the easy thing to do with your thumb. But, you know, what do I know about stuff like this? Or copyright. Or the number of times that stadium photographs have had to be removed due to copyright infringement? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
There is only you, me and the @Desertarun commenting on this talk section, Nobody else is making any paragraph to reach a meaningfull consensus. Its more or less like opinion of few exerted over others. I think let me introduce my arrangement (atleast temporarily) in the article, and let the readers make an opinion. Editor8220 (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The problem I notice with vertical scrolling on a mobile platform is that you have scroll interruptedly on a length between Map and table to have a crosscheck, also one might lose eye tracking on a closely packed table, But on the arrangement I introduced, its seems easy. Also when switched to mobile view, the shear length of table you see in Desktop mode is actually compressed so that only a 2.5 ( 4cm I said early was an estimate. Its really 2.2-2.4 somewhere around when scaled) scroll in horizontal direction is required. I think you really need to test it on a mobile platform yourself. Editor8220 (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I've tested it on multiple mobile platforms. The most commonly used view is portrait, phone screen width. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding copyright vio, I can switch to long held (4 to 5 years) images of stadiums used in their respective articles rather than newer one's that might undergo copyright vio or deletion in near future. Editor8220 (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
A simple table and accompanying map is by far the most reader friendly format. Squeezing in thumbnail images of all the stadia and arranging them around a map is nothing more than an exercise in decoration; but it looks awkward and makes extracting information far more cumbersome than it needs to be. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Wjemather- simple table and separate map is the best solution. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Semifinal start times are wrong!

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

These are not day-night matches! Who put this wrong information there! The match is on now! Sandman1142 (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The cricket world cup final is between India and Australia. 6424Aviral (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The article says that. RudolfRed (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Match Officials for Final Match

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Referee : Andy Pycroft On-Field Umpires : Richard Kettleborough (ENG) & Richard Illingworth (ENG) TV Umpire : Joel Wilson (WI) 4th Umpire : Chris Gaffaney (NZ) 103.241.226.204 (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sports

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please check the information of last cricket world cup 2023. Virat koli avg run was wrong. Kindly correct the avg score. (765/11=59.54 avg)this is a correct AHSAN1102 (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2023

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

.6 players was from Indian team in team of tournament later published by ICC after world cup. 43.230.42.253 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Importance

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I agree that this is an important event but it has been the only World Cup article in the high importance category. The others since 1973 are all in mid importance. So, should this one be "relegated" or should the rest be promoted to high? The importance and quality ratings for the project are all over the place and it is very difficult indeed to achieve any consistency. Batagur baska (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Cricket_World_Cup/Archive_1&oldid=1221520485"