This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the 2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches page were merged into 2007 Cricket World Cup on 26 December 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 4 July 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2007 Cricket World Cup. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The article
2011 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches was
nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 4 July 2023 with a consensus to
merge the content into
2007 Cricket World Cup. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{
afd-merged-from}}. |
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)
**** Australia could get 6th SL 10 AUs 8 ,NZ 8,SA 8,Eng 8,IRL 8 (I was going by how many points teams needed to beat other teams)
Catprog 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
***** SL(Win) V NZ
***** SL(Win) V Aus
***** NZ(Win) V Aus
***** SA(Win) V Nz
***** ENG(Win) V Ban
***** ENG(Win) V Sa
***** ENG(Win) V Wi
***** IRL(Win) V Aus
***** IRL(Win) V Ban
***** IRL(Win) V Nz
***** IRL(Win) V Sl
Catprog
20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Are we coloring teams that are out?
Team | Range of possible final positions | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Currently | AUS win | SRI win | Tie / No result | |
AUS | 1-3 | 1-2 | 1-3 | 1-3 |
RSA | 3-6 | 3-6 | 4-6 | 4-6 |
SRI | 1-4 | 2-4 | 1-3 | 2-3 |
BAN | 5-8 | |||
NZL | 1-3 | |||
ENG | 3-8 | 3-8 | 4-8 | 4-8 |
IRE | 5-8 | |||
WI | 4-8 |
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)
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)
I've just looked through the history of changes following SA vs ENG and it looked like at least five times the semi-final teams were entered (by non-registered users) then reverted by those more knowledgeable who have been doing the proper edits on this page. Is there any way that we can stop non-registered users from re-doing the same mistakes and causing us all time and effort to revert, ie is there a facility to have a warning placed on a particular edit screen, or a pop-up, or can sections be set only for registered users to maintain? Mr splosh 07:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
We could semi-protect it but then anyone that isn't registered wouldn't be able to edit it.-- THUG CHILD z 07:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note: The final placings will not be decided until after AUS v NZL on 20th April. Please do not attempt to fill in the teams before this result is known |
I added the banner message shown above to the semi-finals section, reminding readers not to update the semi places until after AUS V NZL. This was removed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chuq and almost immediately someone added SA into the 4th place slot. What was wrong with having the large banner? it would only stay for a few days, and would save the continual reverting after edits by folk who think they are helping but are just causing more work. Mr splosh 14:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
RSA is placed fourth irrespective of what happens in the future games, SL v IRL, AUS v NZ. Can someone say why this is not the case? - 66.68.140.142 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Cheers! Mr splosh 14:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
So what happens is basically:
Ireland stay an associate member, eligible to play Championship level ODI's whilst remaining an associate member. In other words, the whole effect of Ireland's wins is to put them on a table that means basically nothing for them because they won't get the matches to make it worthwhile.
In other words, good press and that's about it. (And probable tournaments with Kenya and the two lowest Test countries).
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)
Kenya was never full member, there's no such thing as full ODI members, you become a full member when you can test status that's it. Associates gets ODI status, Kenya had it permanently but now they too have to go through the check up every 4 years(world cup qualifiers) until they gain test status. And no Ireland will get matches against top nations too, they have games against India and South Africa lined up for the summer and associates nowadays play double the # of games they ever did.-- THUG CHILD z 01:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
No one removed it. It's in the criticism section.-- THUG CHILD z 17:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see it. Sorry about the last edit. The poor attendance is very notable, since many of the impoverished nations hosting were banking on gate receipts, which ICC actions severly hampered. 75.62.129.40 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong with all the national team templates? The images aren't showing up...? - Ozzykhan 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This happened a lot during one of the last Super8 matches, and is pointless really as there are other sites with live scores. However, amongst the changes was some vandalism on the score of the India vs Ban match (which the editor changed to a win for India). It went un-noticed for a day or so because there was a update for the section every 5 minutes. Someone anonymous is updating the current match SRI vs NZ score (3 times so far) so we need to watch that there is not a bit of valdalism slipped in that goes unnoticed. Mr splosh 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
You could do it, but please make it an optional one.-- THUG CHILD z 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Seconded - many thanks to those involved in keeping this page up-to-date. It was far superior to all the commercial sites. Far Canal 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Your right, I'll make the correction-- Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 03:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
All I can say is that the tournament ended in complete farce. Phu2734 09:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we'd better make a new page for tournament criticisms, it might make this article a little too long *chuckle* 218.102.76.129
The article says, "Mello has no race, species, age or gender", then refers to it as "he". That's obviously contradictory but I can't edit it due to not being a registered user (and if I register now I'll be a "newly-registered" user.) - Greg
I'll change it. But you may want to register anyway and join the project. :) -- THUG CHILD z
OK, you've convinced me. ;)
Well, I know it's not listed; what I'm asking is whether it's notable enough to put in, here and in 2007 Cricket World Cup statistics. It's this: Imran Nazir's 160 for Pakistan against Zimbabwe on 21st March was the highest List A score made in the West Indies. [1] As it happens, Matthew Hayden's 158 for Australia v West Indies six days later also beat the old record. My personal view is that it's easily notable enough, but I'm hesitant to add it as I'm tired and might have missed something obvious. Loganberry ( Talk) 02:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Anyone else reckon this could be taken to GA soon? I'm pretty happy with the contents myself. There are two things that definitely need sorting first, however:
Thanks. AllynJ 21:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
So, is anyone actually opposed to this introduction? I know User:THUGCHILDz said he liked it as it is, but if this is get to GA (which I firmly believe it can do, and somewhat swiftly at that if some people work on it), it does need to change.
I'll leave Sam a message on his talk page, as he seems to be somewhat inactive, over whether he'd like to introduce it, as I think there could otherwise be some GFDL/copyright/whatever issues, what with it not being in the article namespace... I'm not entirely sure, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. Cheers. AllynJ ( talk | contribs) 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
The criticisms section is no good to me what-so-ever unfortunately because for the other people such as Holding(also the internal links on the criticisms part, e.g Holding, doesn't have any mention of his criticism of the WC), I would at least need a quote which i could reference for reliability of the source and to prove he did say that - because I have to give a reference to every source i use or its a fail without any of the work being marked. So i don't think wiki is any good to me on the criticisms part, i do have a couple of magazines with the criticisms in which i can use, so its that sort of thing i'm looking for on the net, i.e on newspaper websites you can find past articles ( but i have already searched these so i've got what i wanted there) .... once again i am really grateful for any help that is given to me.-- Kcricketer198 20:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
[[File:-- 112.135.234.114 ( talk) 09:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Example.jpg]]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
2007 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the 2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches page were merged into 2007 Cricket World Cup on 26 December 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 4 July 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2007 Cricket World Cup. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The article
2011 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches was
nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 4 July 2023 with a consensus to
merge the content into
2007 Cricket World Cup. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{
afd-merged-from}}. |
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)
**** Australia could get 6th SL 10 AUs 8 ,NZ 8,SA 8,Eng 8,IRL 8 (I was going by how many points teams needed to beat other teams)
Catprog 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
***** SL(Win) V NZ
***** SL(Win) V Aus
***** NZ(Win) V Aus
***** SA(Win) V Nz
***** ENG(Win) V Ban
***** ENG(Win) V Sa
***** ENG(Win) V Wi
***** IRL(Win) V Aus
***** IRL(Win) V Ban
***** IRL(Win) V Nz
***** IRL(Win) V Sl
Catprog
20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Are we coloring teams that are out?
Team | Range of possible final positions | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Currently | AUS win | SRI win | Tie / No result | |
AUS | 1-3 | 1-2 | 1-3 | 1-3 |
RSA | 3-6 | 3-6 | 4-6 | 4-6 |
SRI | 1-4 | 2-4 | 1-3 | 2-3 |
BAN | 5-8 | |||
NZL | 1-3 | |||
ENG | 3-8 | 3-8 | 4-8 | 4-8 |
IRE | 5-8 | |||
WI | 4-8 |
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)
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)
I've just looked through the history of changes following SA vs ENG and it looked like at least five times the semi-final teams were entered (by non-registered users) then reverted by those more knowledgeable who have been doing the proper edits on this page. Is there any way that we can stop non-registered users from re-doing the same mistakes and causing us all time and effort to revert, ie is there a facility to have a warning placed on a particular edit screen, or a pop-up, or can sections be set only for registered users to maintain? Mr splosh 07:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
We could semi-protect it but then anyone that isn't registered wouldn't be able to edit it.-- THUG CHILD z 07:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note: The final placings will not be decided until after AUS v NZL on 20th April. Please do not attempt to fill in the teams before this result is known |
I added the banner message shown above to the semi-finals section, reminding readers not to update the semi places until after AUS V NZL. This was removed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chuq and almost immediately someone added SA into the 4th place slot. What was wrong with having the large banner? it would only stay for a few days, and would save the continual reverting after edits by folk who think they are helping but are just causing more work. Mr splosh 14:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
RSA is placed fourth irrespective of what happens in the future games, SL v IRL, AUS v NZ. Can someone say why this is not the case? - 66.68.140.142 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Cheers! Mr splosh 14:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
So what happens is basically:
Ireland stay an associate member, eligible to play Championship level ODI's whilst remaining an associate member. In other words, the whole effect of Ireland's wins is to put them on a table that means basically nothing for them because they won't get the matches to make it worthwhile.
In other words, good press and that's about it. (And probable tournaments with Kenya and the two lowest Test countries).
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)
Kenya was never full member, there's no such thing as full ODI members, you become a full member when you can test status that's it. Associates gets ODI status, Kenya had it permanently but now they too have to go through the check up every 4 years(world cup qualifiers) until they gain test status. And no Ireland will get matches against top nations too, they have games against India and South Africa lined up for the summer and associates nowadays play double the # of games they ever did.-- THUG CHILD z 01:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
No one removed it. It's in the criticism section.-- THUG CHILD z 17:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see it. Sorry about the last edit. The poor attendance is very notable, since many of the impoverished nations hosting were banking on gate receipts, which ICC actions severly hampered. 75.62.129.40 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong with all the national team templates? The images aren't showing up...? - Ozzykhan 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This happened a lot during one of the last Super8 matches, and is pointless really as there are other sites with live scores. However, amongst the changes was some vandalism on the score of the India vs Ban match (which the editor changed to a win for India). It went un-noticed for a day or so because there was a update for the section every 5 minutes. Someone anonymous is updating the current match SRI vs NZ score (3 times so far) so we need to watch that there is not a bit of valdalism slipped in that goes unnoticed. Mr splosh 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
You could do it, but please make it an optional one.-- THUG CHILD z 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Seconded - many thanks to those involved in keeping this page up-to-date. It was far superior to all the commercial sites. Far Canal 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Your right, I'll make the correction-- Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 03:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
All I can say is that the tournament ended in complete farce. Phu2734 09:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we'd better make a new page for tournament criticisms, it might make this article a little too long *chuckle* 218.102.76.129
The article says, "Mello has no race, species, age or gender", then refers to it as "he". That's obviously contradictory but I can't edit it due to not being a registered user (and if I register now I'll be a "newly-registered" user.) - Greg
I'll change it. But you may want to register anyway and join the project. :) -- THUG CHILD z
OK, you've convinced me. ;)
Well, I know it's not listed; what I'm asking is whether it's notable enough to put in, here and in 2007 Cricket World Cup statistics. It's this: Imran Nazir's 160 for Pakistan against Zimbabwe on 21st March was the highest List A score made in the West Indies. [1] As it happens, Matthew Hayden's 158 for Australia v West Indies six days later also beat the old record. My personal view is that it's easily notable enough, but I'm hesitant to add it as I'm tired and might have missed something obvious. Loganberry ( Talk) 02:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Anyone else reckon this could be taken to GA soon? I'm pretty happy with the contents myself. There are two things that definitely need sorting first, however:
Thanks. AllynJ 21:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
So, is anyone actually opposed to this introduction? I know User:THUGCHILDz said he liked it as it is, but if this is get to GA (which I firmly believe it can do, and somewhat swiftly at that if some people work on it), it does need to change.
I'll leave Sam a message on his talk page, as he seems to be somewhat inactive, over whether he'd like to introduce it, as I think there could otherwise be some GFDL/copyright/whatever issues, what with it not being in the article namespace... I'm not entirely sure, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. Cheers. AllynJ ( talk | contribs) 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
The criticisms section is no good to me what-so-ever unfortunately because for the other people such as Holding(also the internal links on the criticisms part, e.g Holding, doesn't have any mention of his criticism of the WC), I would at least need a quote which i could reference for reliability of the source and to prove he did say that - because I have to give a reference to every source i use or its a fail without any of the work being marked. So i don't think wiki is any good to me on the criticisms part, i do have a couple of magazines with the criticisms in which i can use, so its that sort of thing i'm looking for on the net, i.e on newspaper websites you can find past articles ( but i have already searched these so i've got what i wanted there) .... once again i am really grateful for any help that is given to me.-- Kcricketer198 20:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
[[File:-- 112.135.234.114 ( talk) 09:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Example.jpg]]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
2007 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
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)