Talk:2007 Cricket World Cup

message: Are we going to colour teams by qualification status in the Super Eight stage, as we did in the Group stage?
In case anyone's wondering, irrespective of what happens in today's RSA v WI match, no team will be mathematically assured to have qualified or failed to qualify for the Finals stage (even if WI lose, they can still theoretically finish as high as third).
So let's not go all colour crazy, okay?
Hesperian 03:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hesperian 04:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, only highlighting the teams that are through.--THUGCHILDz 23:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We did it in the group stages. When did it change ? Catprog 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can someone explain why we are not colouring eliminated teams? I think it gives more information that a team cannot qualify by using a darker colour. I am putting in colour. Please explain if why you dont want to colour eliminated teams. Sasank 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no objection to that. I'm not aware that it has ever been discussed. Someone coloured Ireland in red a couple of days ago, and Thugchildz removed it. Hesperian 06:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see both sides here.  It is useful to colour the teams that have been eliminated during a round, but at the end of it then obviously all the teams which are not green are eliminated, so there is no purpose.  I'm not sure which is best .. -- Chuq (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's useful to colour both the teams that have clinched a spot in the next round and the ones that are mathematically out. And I think it's good (though not essential) to return the losers to white once the qualifiers are all determined. Wahkeenah 12:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concensus over the group stages was to use dark grey or red when a team is eliminated, as long as other teams are still undecided. Once the top 4 a lock in, and the bottom 4 locked in, then we revert to just using green/gray--Dacium 05:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems *completely* redundant and pointless to colour the 4 bottom teams in now that the 4 teams going through have been decided. It gives no extra indication, and grey is hardly a change from the white as it is. I've changed it to this way, respond if you have any complaints with me doing so but I can't see any reason why there should be. AllynJ 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Will it have any effect on position within the finals? e.g. will it guarantee Australia first place, or guarantee Sri Lanka higher than a certain position, etc?  (I realise I could work this out myself but you are the expert ;) ) -- Chuq (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it will. Table below. Hesperian 02:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hesperian 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hesperian 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: colouring teams by qualification status

message: Other cricket sources, for example CricInfo, show the net run rate to three decimal places. What do you think about changing it to 3 dp here too? It is very likely that the super 8s will be resolved on NRR so showing it to a greater level of detail might be worth it, plus it is an easy change.
Mr splosh 07:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah its easy after we changed it to do the mathematics, just change round 2 to round 3. I think 3 fair enough because it is usually the standard.--Dacium 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRR to three decimal places? 

message: A new user just added the team names to the semi-final boxes. I reverted that. As I type this, it is not known which teams will face which other teams in the semis.Ordinary Person 05:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how wikipedia works.--THUGCHILDz 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that I didn't delete them, I put them in comment tags so that only editors can see them.  Readers don't need to see those notices. -- Chuq (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If Ireland defeats Sri Lanka by a huge margin, South Africa will be third. Tintin 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I had incorrectly assumed that if two teams are tied with equal points, the head-to-head between the two applies.
Yes, this is being done a lot. Someone changed it to have all the countries listed that could make it to that specific spot but later reverted there change: perhaps we should bring that back? For example it would look like:
----
 
Might be a bit confusing, though, considering the first box could be read as one team playing itself, as Sri/NZL can finish 2nd/3rd. Not sure if it's even worth the hassle, but it's worth considering. AllynJ 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No nothing should be added until it's confirmed.--THUGCHILDz 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semis 

message: These figures have been adjusted in the table at 02:14 April 18th by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.46.143.239 but the previous values matched those figures on cricinfo. Does this mean cricinfo have it wrong? I have not gone through all the scorecards to check if the details given are correct. Mr splosh 08:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSA over faced and IRE overs bowled    

message: Surely the ICC doesn't use such an awful definition of a team having permanent ODI status until a certain time. This would represent a contradiction in terms - the "permanent temporary" status. Perhaps a better word (in the absence of the ICC actually doing that) would be full. From what I read, Kenya and Ireland have full ODI status until 2009 (or whenever); clearly not permanent.
:No the ICC don't use that term, only various sections of the media too lazy to do their research. Ireland's status has not changed as a result of their performance in this World Cup. If you excuse the little plug, I wrote a post on my blog covering this which should sum up the situation here. Andrew nixon 12:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ( And I was about to edit my post and fix my error anyways. 
In addition, Kenya had their full ODI status stripped a few years back (they apparently did have full ODI status) for administration related reasons. So they were full ODI members, but are no longer - which may have been the source for the confusion, as Kenya were awarded that (it wasn't automatic.)
60.226.133.172 13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Permanent" ODI status 

message: There is a table in this article showing the top three "all rounders" so far. How is this being assessed? Is some relative weighting of wickets and runs being employed?
Ordinary Person 10:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea where this has come from: the source listed below at Cricinfo has no specific stats for it either. Voting delete, certainly on this article: if someone wants to include it on the WC2007 Stats page WITH a source I would have no problems. AllynJ 13:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely this is considered POV. You can't really rate two separate things together like that to come up with a new one. It may be legitimate, however, to include players who got at least 5 wickets and 200 runs, or something along those lines. --mdmanser 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All round performance 

message: It is a well-documented fact that this cup did not do as well for the organizers as they had hoped.  It is also well-documented that organizers alienated the locals by their very strict policies and high ticket prices. Why is this controversial? Someone keeps removing it.
75.62.129.40 15:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine, and I totally get what you're saying and stuff but you still have to have a neutral point of view with providing both sides. Which is now done. Also on the side note, remember that the nation's wouldn't really get $ from the tickets; it would be the local organizers who would. And they were mainly in charge with the ICC just overseeing it.--THUGCHILDz 01:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Attendance 

message: What is wrong with all the national team templates? The images aren't showing up...? - Ozzykhan 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team templates 

message: Would it be a good idea to put the "Player of the tournament" in the info box ie change the info box to include this for all world cup series. The POTT would be just as (more so?) important as the highest run scorer or leading wicket taker.
Also I've seen tables with the ranking of the player of the tournament. Were these official or were they just aussie channel nine's rankings? - Ctbolt 09:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was McGrath at the top by about 3 points? I saw some rankings of players at the tournament that were apparently based off of the commentators taking a vote for the top 3 players per game, points add up. Sounds a bit silly, though - but that's just personal opinion (especially since Hayden wasn't even in the top 5 I don't think... :p). Unfortunately I don't know of anywhere that would have a source for this - it seemed to be the intellectual property of bSkyb, or whoever owns the transmission rights. AllynJ 09:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No 'Man of the Series' was awarded in1975, 1979, 1983 and 1987. The first was awarded in 1993. The award was changed to 'Player of the Tournament' in 1999 and then to 'Player of the Series' in 2003 - Ctbolt 03:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player of the tournament 

message: As with other recent world tournaments, I found this Wikpedia article far supererior, in terms of hard information and keeping up with the results and developments, than any news and sports websites on the net. It is much easier to browse than any sports results service. Congratulations to all concerned. Rexparry sydney 01:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is good isn't it, considering its just a page from a whole bunch of people contributing.--Dacium 23:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Amateurs' hit 'professionals' into the stands 

message: The Australian team have now won three consecutive World Cups without losing a single match.
Didn't the Aussies lose quite a few matches in the 99' edition? Of the top of my head, I can remember losing to the Kiwis.
Tommy Stardust 01:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wait, its already been done.--Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the wording should be they haven't lost a watch from when they won their first world cup.--Dacium 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the intro?? 

message: Could someone add to the explanation of the situation that occured with the premature end to the final, by explaining the bad light playing conditions and how the umpiring team interpreted them at the end of this game?  the media has not provided any real clear answers as yet  202.36.134.22 04:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current revision sounds plausible to me, though I have no idea myself - that it was too dark to play any more but since there were only 3 overs left they decided to just bite the bullet and play them anyway. AllynJ 07:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing conditions/Final

message: Okay, so a few weeks ago someone added a 'Retirees' section, which I removed soon after for various reasons: I believe I was correct in doing so as it was poorly written, and listed about 4-5 people max. However, I think adding such a sub-section, perhaps under Overview#Notable events , would be a good idea; providing we list all the players who did so. Thoughts? Thanks. AllynJ 16:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's really needed.--THUGCHILDz 00:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. It seems like something that people could be interested in, certainly as much as some info on the page. AllynJ 13:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirees 

message: Hi., do we need the scorecards of first round and super eight matches in their seperate articles as well as in this article. my take is that a summary and the points table is sufficient here, with the points table being the only duplication between the 2 articles. Let me know. Kalyan 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they should stay. Doesn't matter if there's duplicated materials on different articles as long as they are relevant to the article. Main articles are for in-dept information on the subject of the article but other article that the subject falls into should have a summary of it and that's what the scorecards are.--THUGCHILDz 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this page will cover the overview of the entire tournament. i was intending to remove the scorecards from this page (it is already in the 'daughter' pages) and replace with an analysis of group stage matches and super-8. Please let me know your thoughts before i embark down that path. Kalyan 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The analysis should be on the respective article, the scorecards IMO is the overview of the tournament while the analysis are the details. If someone wanted to look at a quick check on who Ireland beat to go the super 8, it would be easier to look at the scorecards than to read the whole analysis and so imo the scorecards are the overview while the analysis are more of a detail kind of things. Although, it would be good if you could provide some analysis for some of the matches in the group stage and super 8 which doesn't have any yet.--THUGCHILDz 19:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need? 

message: Does anyone on here know how much the ticket prices were for the world cup, and if possible could you send me a link to where you found out the price - i need the reference. I'm doing my economics coursework on the world cup but i can't find anywhere that tells me the ticket prices!!
Also i'd really appreciate it if anyone could give me a link to articles, either on wiki or on another website, of any of the complaints made by Sir Viv Richards or anyone else who criticised the organisers. Anything else relevent would also be really appreciated. 
Many thanks--Kcricketer198 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the latter of your two requests, check the criticism section; the footnotes have links to articles (including one quoting Sir Viv as requested) about the massive backlash over the World Cup's organisation and general running. I'll look in to ticket pricing. Although I don't think Talk pages are really the place for this kind of thing, but what the hey. AllynJ 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for that, i do appreciate it. Also I don't see the problem with using Talk pages for this kind of thing, how else am I going to get the information quickly if its hard to find online lol. It seems as though they have removed the ticket prices, for the obvious that the WC is now over. Anyway, thanks for your help--Kcricketer198 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ticket Prices 

message: This article has been demoted from class=B to class=Start because (a) it is far too big and needs to be separated into at least two divisions per WP:SPINOUT; and (b) because it breaches WP:FLAG (although I have tried to rectify that).  Flag icons cause download problems, particularly for readers without broadband and they add absolutely nothing of value to the article.  BlackJack | talk page 08:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the rating to C-class, as the article is better than start class. Aaroncrick(Tassie talk) 05:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: How was Kensington Ovals capacity 32,000? When just over 20,000 attended the World Cup Final. Surely the final would of been close to capacity. Watching highlights of the game there doesn't appear to be 12,000 seats left. Aaroncrick(Tassie talk) 05:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Capacity

message: I think it's an interesting coincidence that Ireland beat Pakistan on March 17th, St. Patrick's Day, maybe that can be mentioned somewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.84.204 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland v Pakistan 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2007 Cricket World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070926234921/http://www.ecb.co.uk/news/world/icc-table-provides-basis,3325,EN.html to http://www.ecb.co.uk/news/world/icc-table-provides-basis,3325,EN.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070402194010/http://cricket.indiatimes.com:80/articleshow/1659807.cms to http://cricket.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1659807.cms
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2007 ICC 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927023254/http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060831/news/news2.html to http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060831/news/news2.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ecb.co.uk/news/world/icc-table-provides-basis%2C3325%2CEN.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fsport%2F2007%2F03%2F11%2Fscath111.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 22:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress