Talk:2017 ICC Champions Trophy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Duplicated article

An article also exists at

ICC Champions Trophy 2017 which covers the same ground as this article. Looks like one or the other should be deleted. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for spotting that. I've
been bold and redirected the other (inferior) one here. And this one uses the correct name convention. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 10:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Cheers, I didn't want to initiate a move or deletion myself as I only edit cricket sporadically and thought it best left to those who are used to the conventions and standards. Thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google search event

I think we need semi-protection for today untill 04:00 June 2nd 2017 to prevent vandalism... this page will go viral... 86.22.8.235 (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several editors working on and watching this page. I think the real problems will start on Sunday, but until they do, the page will stay as it is now. If a wave of bad edits start coming in, then protection will be bumped up. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hide warm-up matches?

The warm-up games did not feature two of the eight teams. They are not qualifying matches as well. So, why not 'hide' them like here. I feel they should not be added with all the details, in par with the main games of the competition. It disturbs the flow of content in the page. How about using the match summary template for it if not 'hide'? —Editor5454 (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make a similar point. I know
MOS:COLLAPSE says stuff shouldn't be auto hidden, so would it be better to move content to its own page (similar to the squads)? Spike 'em (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you clarify what you mean by "disturbs the flow of content in the page"? How so? Is it massively distracting? Is it somehow unclear what those fixtures are? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It "disturbs" in that an interested reader while going through the content reads the "qualification", "venues", "squads" and then would want to see the main games of the competition right away. Why would anyone be interested in going through the warm-up games that are given in such detail and equal importance like the main games. Also, the warm-up games are not technically part of the competition. So, I don't think they should find place here. Or as Spike 'em mentioned, it would be "better to move content to its own page". Many 'friendly' games are played before the commencement of a FIFA World Cup, albeit not immediately before. But, you don't see them mentioned in the main page. Thanks. Editor5454 (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, "an interested reader" may not care one bit about the qualification, venues or squads either, and want to get straight to the matches too. There's a table of contents in the top left corner, so any reader can click straight to the bit they want (venues, group stage, final, etc, etc). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate that, in my opinion, since warm-up games are strictly not part of the main competition, it should occupy only a smaller space in the page. 'Hiding' or creating a new page for them would be a better option.
FA. — Editor5454 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not a FA. I've got nothing against moving it to its own article, but I don't really see the point. It's not as if the section is massive and the page is also massive. If a few others feel it's a distraction, then
be bold and go for it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
"Don't see the point"? Do all the reasons that I mentioned not suffice? Also, since there a hardly a few registered users contributing to the page, I don't think a consensus for creating a separate page for warm-up games would be reached anyway. So, let's see. Editor5454 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remember everyone, this user said - "It disturbs the flow of content in the page." But is quite happy to add all the crap about broadcasting rights. Oh dear. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you braindead? How is broadcasting rights "crap"? Please go through 2014 FIFA World Cup, 2015 Cricket World Cup, 2015 Rugby World Cup. Warm-up games were played before each of these tournaments, yet not added in the main page, because they are not a part of the tournament. If added, they are either 'hidden' or linked to another 'main article'. Media and broadcasting rights are details about the promotional activities and details about airing of the main games on various platforms. If a consensus is reached and other editors want it deleted, I would not complain. Please do not spread hate. Thanks. Editor5454 (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Utter pointless cruft, that's why it's crap. So what they're in other articles? More rubbish from you I see. You've just copied a list from another website and dumped it here. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete it all (the ICC press releases and list of broadcasters). Rewording ICC press releases fails both
WP:NOTPROMO. Spike 'em (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Lugnuts, I just explained the point that probably did not get into you. They are in those articles because they have a wider reach and have been contributed to / observed / admin-ed by a larger number of editors than pages like this where someone like you has gone on for 10 years adding only stats of games without real written content, which is why FAs and GAs of cricket-related pages are far less than those of other sports. An encyclopedia requires diversity in content for its improvement and not just statistics. For statistics, people have Cricinfo and Cricbuzz. And yes, what if the format is copied from those articles or info taken from other websites. That's how it works in Wiki, isn't it? To apply individual logic and keep posting whatever you want, however crude it might sound / look, you have Facebook. It is really unbecoming of a seemingly experienced editor to behave in such uncivil manner I'm sorry. Anyway, if any other users want the 'Media and broadcasting rights' section deleted, they are free to. I would not let my ego come in the way and rant about it. I'm done here. Thanks. Editor5454 (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What possible value does a list of broadcasters add to the article? Spike 'em (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None that I can see. At most, just a line to say it was shown in x countries (with a source) would suffice. Who would find info about Starhub showing it in Singapore useful? Or that Sky are showing it in the UK? I'm also concerned it's a possible
WP:COPYVIO too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE is the bit I was after. Basically, this isn't something that should be finding its way into articles. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
If Wiki guidelines say they are not useful or don't add value to the article, fine. I have no problem. I am not one who takes it upon myself. Cool, thanks!. Editor5454 (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhar Zaman debut

Didn't Fakhar Zaman make his ODI debut against South Africa? Not sure why my edit got deleted there. Linkiscool99 (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted - just hidden as the "notes" parameter was used twice on the same scorecard. It's now fixed. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Linkiscool99 (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-final

Who India will play in the Semi-finals is still to be decided based on the NRR for the Sri Lanka/Pakistan match.
As the BBC state here:- "It would take a dramatic swing in net run-rate for India to be toppled as Group B leaders, so they are likely to play Bangladesh at Edgbaston on Thursday."
Please note the statement is "are likely to play Bangladesh" NOT "will play Bangladesh".
We therefore need to wait for tomorrows match before we know which semi-final India will be in - please stop entering India as playing Bangladesh until after tomorrow's game - thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cricinfo scorecard linked with the semifinal says it's Bangladesh vs India. 42.109.134.227 (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They're a bit early. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the ICC match centre (currently) has the Bangladesh's opponent as "B1". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From today's commentary - either SL/Pak would need to win by 294 runs or more (!) to top the group. You never know... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or Pakistan to knock off the runs within 10.4 overs (chasing 250) and 15.4 overs (chasing 350), batting second (though this is
WP:OR so don't quote me on it) Spike 'em (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Hehe, CI quoted a chase of 250 runs in 10.4 overs, or 350 in 15 overs! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
they can have 4 extra balls if they score a 6 with scores level Spike 'em (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will people stop putting in India for the semi-final against Bangladesh?! How many times do we have to revert these edits? Sri Lanka/Pakistan can still finish top of Group B on NRR. Unlikely, yes, but possible. Linkiscool99 (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wishful thinking that anyone will bother reading this! SL will soon be out of the running though Spike 'em (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well fact fans : SL now cant overtake India and Pak need to get the runs in between 10 and 10.5 overs (as they could have a winning score between 237 and 242). I'll resist the temptation to update the semi-final bracket once we've had 11 overs as this is OR Spike 'em (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can be updated now because it is mathematically impossible for Sri Lanka or Pakistan to finish top of group B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkiscool99 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Pakistan needed to achieve this by no later than the 12th over, which has long gone. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rules for ICC Champions Trophy?

What will happen if rain interrupts any of the semi final matches? Say for an example, BD vs Ind semi final match washed by the rain, which team will go to final in that case? what is the rule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.118.212 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - according to this which is not the official site :-
"if the match is a no result or abandoned, then the team which finished first in its Group shall progress to the Final". - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of an edit made

As directed by

edit warring and threatened to "block" me. I would like to point out that real-time updating on scores does not make anyone the owner of the page. Please be accommodative to other editors and find out why an edit was made before reverting it back to your previous versions. Thank you. Editor5454 (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I think "Champions Trophy history" or "the history of Champions Trophy" would be a better usage than "Champions Trophy tournaments". 42.109.134.227 (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear, as it means the ICC Champions Trophy, which is then expanded upon in the lead of this article and the main one. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear. Here is an example for you. Please read and understand before deleting. Thank you. Editor5454 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear. That's just another poorly worded WP entry you've supplied. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate. It is not clear. Here is the very article used as a source for the content in question. Editor5454 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read that article?! The title of it even says "...highest Champions Trophy chase...". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When we cite sources on Wikipedia, we quote the content in the said article and not its title. The title is only a sum up of the content in a few words. Editor5454 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And in this case the title makes perfect sense and doesn't need further expansion. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article, that make similar usage in multiple places. FAs and GAs as you might know are articles of the highest quality on Wikipedia, wherein such errors have been discussed and taken care of. So, please read them carefully, and try and understand their usage. Thank you. Editor5454 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That's great, but there's still nothing wrong the wording/usage of Champions Trophy in this article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis are you saying that? It is wrong. I have explained it to you in such detail and with examples. How could you not be convinced? It's is so easy to comprehend the difference between the two. One user above has already agreed to the usage of "Champions Trophy history" for the content in question. And you have not supported your argument with a single source except for your own logic. Let me also point out that
Wikipedia is not about winning. So, please make the changes or let me. Thank you. Editor5454 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
WP is about gaining a
WP:CONSENSUS. Your view is wrong, simple as that. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I fail to understand why then a such "vastly more experienced editor" would not accept what is correct here. "Correct" in that I have supported my argument with many high-quality sources and yet Lugnuts refuses to give in; calling it "wrong" on applying his own logic and nothing else. Not a single valid argument or a reliable source to support it. How will a consensus in such a case be reached? Editor5454 (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Editor5454 on this issue. That's my two cents on the matter. Linkiscool99 (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 against 1. Is that enough 'consensus'? Or we should we wait for the unrelenting 1 to accept this argument some time in the future? Editor5454 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you said
Wikipedia is not about winning! Who are the three? You. And IP (who could that be...?) and Links (who hasn't said WHY they support you). The external link you provided in this very discussion uses the current wording. So did another one that you removed. Let's ask another user @Ianblair23: You made this change with the wording "...returned the second best bowling figures in the Champions Trophy with..." Is there any need to change that to "...Champions Trophy tournaments..."? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, Wikipedia is not about winning and I maintain that. I have been an active editor / contributor in Wikipedia for close to 5 years now and over 1.5 years with this account. I bet you to find a single disruptive edit and my account / IP is open to be banned. So, stop accusing me of all this. My only concern is why an experienced editor like you refuses to give in for maintaining sentences in the content to technically correct ones. Yes, "...returned the second best bowling figures in Champions Trophy history" is more accurate than "...returned the second best bowling figures in the Champions Trophy" because the latter is ambiguous; reasons explained in such detail above. Unlike your argument supported by your own whims, I have supported mine with multiple sources, both external and Wikipedia's FAs and GAs. If a more experienced editor feels your version is alright, I would be fine. After all, the ultimate goal is to improve content here. Thank you. Editor5454 (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ambiguous at all. Show me how you are confused by this? The sources that you have provided simply show "the Champions Trophy". So what other accounts have you used? Care to disclose them? And you can stop stalking my edits and making
WP:NOTHERE to improve content afterall, as that's what it looks like from your editing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you even read my comments and the source provided (the one that you mentioned)? Or in a hurry to update scores in real-time? How am I "confused"? The source says, "...highest-successful chase in the tournament's history". Do not go by the title. Article headings / titles are mostly sum-ups of the body in a few words and are grammatically inaccurate. I have explained your statement's ambiguity in such great detail and with multiple examples and you still fail to get it. It's a real shame, I'm sorry. And you accuse me of stalking? Any proof? See, I hold nothing against you and have stood always for what I felt is right. It looks like you hold some sort of a prejudice against me calling me all sorts of names "pointy", "nothere", whatever they mean. Also, if you insist, Mayurai~enwiki was my previous account. Find 1 disruptive edit, I challenge you. Editor5454 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your own edit that says, "... highest sixth-wicket partnership in the history of the Intercontinental Cup". Now, replace "Intercontinental Cup" by "Champions Trophy" or "World Cup" or "World Twenty20". Do you understand? Better clarity? Now, please do not accuse me of stalking. This tournament is ongoing, and I happened to see it, and found out out that you had made that edit yourself. You have your footprints on almost every cricket article there is. I appreciate your work. But, not being accommodative to other editors is a pity. Editor5454 (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just think Editor5454's is clearer. The Lugnuts edition makes it sound like it is only referring to *this* edition of the tournament. Much ado about nothing this, it has to be said. Linkiscool99 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is that. They obviously have nothing better to do than pick at unimportant minutiae. I, meanwhile, am busy building an encyclopedia. Still, he'll keep stalking me to prove his
WP:POINT. Whatever that is. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Well sir, this is a personal attack on me. With absolutely zero proofs, you have gone on accusing me of whatever came to you mind. I also don't understand what you mean by "They obviously have nothing better to do". Who is "they"? What are you trying to say? Making this encyclopedia better is as much of interest to me as it to you, no matter how "unimportant" ("minutiae") it is. You are again accusing me of picking on you. I have given you IDs my 2 Wiki accounts (I'm currently using only this) that has 5 years of my editing history. Why don't you find out for yourself if I have had such a record. You sir, should keep your ego aside and work towards building a consensus here. Editor5454 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither the time nor the energy to go through your contibutions, unlike you, as you've gone through mine (to find one diff from 4 months ago) and are following me around here. Carry on. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you do not understand anything told once. It has to be repeated. The ICC Intercontinental Cup is an ongoing tournament, and I found it here. "Neither do I have the time nor the energy to go through" your countless two-line articles. I say again for the umpteenth time: Please do not hold prejudice against any editor. Wikipedia pages are in public domain. You do not own them. You are an experienced editor here. So, please be welcoming to fellow editors. Thank you! Editor5454 (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're stalking me. It's pretty obvious. And you continue with rude reverts for what ever agenda you have. You really should know better. Keep it up, and you wont last much longer. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Rude reverts"? What are you on? For the 100th time, what proof do you have? My only agenda is to improve Wiki articles in areas of my interest: politics, cinema and sports. You could stop your personal attacks on me and get back to creating your two-line articles and real-time score updates. Thanks. Editor5454 (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

119.160.116.73 (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC) aijaz ahmed kaka[reply]

You need to state what' it is you want to change... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2017

Q: What's average of Root? 300+? Stupid people!! 2405:205:A020:439F:A166:93C1:768D:12B2 (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His average is 106.00, per the source. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_ICC_Champions_Trophy&oldid=1212402204"