Talk:2009 Indian Premier League

You Sure

"The format of the tournament would remain unchanged in its second season. The eight franchisees will first play against one another in a league on home-and-away basis." Just a day or two back I read (in TOI Ahmedabad edition) Anil Ambani and Adani Group were at loggerheads over the Ahmedabad team and somewhere else that Ahmedabad and Kanpur are under consideration for franchise

That said, do we need this article at all, at this time? Almost everything is tentative and next to nothing is set in stone. --soum ^talk 05:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, the teams will be the same for the next three years, after which a new team will be added every year, except on the sixth year, when two new teams will be added (source:Lalit modi on set max) - Amog |^Talk 09:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I will just add a "citation needed" tag or 2 to the article and someone can dig up an article with the relevant information. As for whether we should have this article now at all, I think we might as well keep it. It does have some basic information about the 2009 IPL (such as the fact that there will be such a competition) and we will have to create it sooner or later anyway. Having the page also makes it possible for people to add relevant information to the article as soon as they come across it (eg if the match schedule is published in the next few months). Juwe (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I'm proposing deletion of this article based on the reasons given. Please have a look: [1], [2]. There's no indication anywhere as to when the next season is or what are the possible changes taking place. I suggest that we should remove the article at present and should recreate it only if and so any official announcement is made. A mere possibility of an event taking place in the future does not warrant creating an entire article. Such speculations, if substantiated, may be stated in the main league article or as a follow-up in the previous season article. LeaveSleaves (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your statement "A mere possibility of an event taking place in the future does not warrant creating an entire article." However, there is not a mere possibility of a 2009 IPL. The 2009 IPL will occur. The articles you have linked to refer to the possibility of 2 IPL seasons inside 1 year, something that Lalit Modi indicates won't happen for a few years (if at all). As such, I oppose the deletion of the 2009 IPL article. Juwe (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. First you say you agree with my statement on invalidity of the article, then you say you oppose article's deletion. Please be clear on this.

The whole point behind giving those links was to point out the uncertainty as to "when" the next season would occur, not whether it'd occur or not. I can almost agree with your opinion that next season will take place. Unfortunately we can't take your word (or mine) on that. Like I said stating such possibilities more appropriately belongs to Indian Premier League or 2008 Indian Premier League. LeaveSleaves (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said I agreed with you on, as you just put it "invalidity of the article". What I said was that I agreed with your statement: "A mere possibility of an event taking place in the future does not warrant creating an entire article." I went on to point out that this statement does not apply to the 2009 IPL (ie, the 2009 IPL is not such an event). Your confusion stems from the fact that you have interpreted the articles to be saying that Modi was unclear on when the next IPL season would take place (2009, 2010, 2011 etc). This was not what Modi was suggesting. What he had proposed was that there be 2 IPL seasons per year (ie 2 seasons in 2008, 2 seasons in 2009, etc). The articles you linked to state that this plan will not come into effect for at least a few years. There will definitely be one IPL season in 2009 though (and one in 2010, 2011 etc) Juwe (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, stop explaining to me what Modi was suggesting or otherwise or making statements on how I interpret things. Secondly give me one formal citation where Modi had proposed multiple seasons in 2008 or 2009. Thirdly, I'm afraid to point out that you are still supporting my very argument that there is no official announcement yet. It's difficult to consider the notability of such article. Not to mention the fact that there is not a single statement in that article that you can support through a reliable source (except the fact that IPL was established by BCCI in '07). LeaveSleaves (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop being so indignant and read your own links. In particular the Times of India one entitled "No second IPL this year, informs Modi". Note carefully these parts:

• "Lalit Modi put to rest the speculation of a second IPL this year"
• "He said they were looking forward to the tournament next year."
• "Modi had hinted at a second IPL this year"

There are numerous other articles which make reference to the fact that there will definitely be an IPL next year (such as all the ones about the initial player auction and how players were purchased by teams for each of the first three years of IPL, but I don't feel inclined to waste any more of my time on digging them up, given that you have been so unwilling to listen and respond rationally to what I have already said. Juwe (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Again "no indication on formal proposal or announcement". A mere indication of tournament next year does not warrant the notability for an entire article. I'm putting up this article for an AfD proposal. LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my proposal for deletion in the light that a reference has been added to support the nomination. However I'd still like to suggest that until any further substantial information is available, the article be merged with any of the two aforementioned articles. LeaveSleaves (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Firsty, I am pleased that you have withdrawn AfD nomination for this article. However, rushing to put it up for AfD in the first place was quite frankly a ridiculous and unacceptable waste of time. As Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Editing says:

• "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem."

You have consistently refused to address my points that there would definitely be a 2009 IPL season, and instead imposed an arbitrary criterion on the the exact format that a reference article had to be in to satisfy yourself that the 2009 Season was definitely going to occur. This arbitrary criterion (that Lalit Modi must make a "formal proposal or announcement" that there would be a 2009 Season) was also nonsensical because, as I have already stated, when players signed up for the IPL they did so for the first 3 years (ie 2008, 2009 and 2010). It would not just be unneccessary for Modi to make a statement that "there will be a 2009 IPL Season", it would be abosolutely ludicrous. Your refusal to properly read your own links and then subsequent refusal to accept the significant necessary implication of other articles linked on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Indian Premier League (ie, that there would be a 2009 Season) is highly counterproductive, and misses the point of what the goal of wikipedia should be. Leaving aside the invalidity of the overhasty AfD nomination, remember that wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and wikilawyering is to be avoided.

On your suggestion that this article be merged with another, I strongly oppose this also. Note that WP:ATD#Merging states "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into a larger article or list." The 2009 IPL article is clearly one that will be expanded and is notable in its own right. The situation is similar to other pages for the next season of a particular competition (eg Premier League 2008-09 and 2008 U.S. Open (tennis)). Juwe (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your condescending and pedantic speeches right away. I haven't on any level gone out of the way in proposing the article for PROD or AfD. Please be careful before accusing me of doing anything that is in violation of policies.

And I don't see what's wrong in requesting an explicit citation regarding, once again not the occurrence of the event, but the information given in the article. Let me point out that at no point have you actually addressed this issue. Once the issue was answered I have almost immediately retrieved the nomination.

And for the last time, the reason I entered those links was only to point out that the information about the next season (again, the details not occurrence) is extremely hazy and unclear. Also please don't comment on what is and what isn't necessary to be said by anybody and how you imply your decisions based on any other articles. What was necessary here was a clear, reliably sourced citation (just like the one given eventually).

A merging of this article or for that matter deletion does not in any way affect its development. If you believe, as do I, that we'd get more details, eventually we can recreate and expand it accordingly. In fact that will serve as a far more succinct article than the bits and pieces with templates it is now.

And please don't compare other tournament articles with this one. For one thing they are far more established tournaments being conducted over years and follow a certain schedule every year. And even they are well announced and detailed by the authorities who conduct them.

I don't have any more comments to make on this issue, since to me it was pretty much resolved yesterday.

And a mere suggestion, if it doesn't offend you, consider your own previous reply with respect to the very policies you've mentioned in them. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of not leaving this thread hanging and tying it up, I will briefly post here. I don't intend to respond to any of the content of your last reply as it relates to the dispute, as, like you say, the issue has been resolved anyway, and there is no point in reigniting the argument. I think (and forgive me if I have misinterpreted you) that we are in agreement to let the conversation "speak for itself" as it stands, and let other editors make of it what they will. As such, I have drawn a line in the sand under this issue. Juwe (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason for deletion.I think it will be held soon.yousaf465

Image copyright problem with File:DLF IPL logo.png

The image File:DLF IPL logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of Stadiums

Aren't some of the images in the stadium section copyright? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if they are copyright or not. Sorry if they are. Please can somebody get images for the stadiums that are copyrighted. jonathanburger ^talk 13:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think they are. It's a pain in the ass trying to find free images. I've tried to find them for SA grounds before. I admire your enthusiasm but just make sure the images have a free license! :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

home/away advantage

does someone know whether there is really a home/away team advantage? do the franchises have home grounds in SA? --ti 15:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they do. I can't recall where the others are but KKR is based in Bloemfontein. --soumyasch 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

no they don't. with the majority of games in Cape Town and Durban. The grounds used don't relate to the teams playing. However it would be nice to keep the home/away win table, for consistency with the 2008 IPL and future seasons. Davo499 (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I got the OP's intent confused with the teams' home bases. --soum^talk 04:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

All the games are scattered all over the country. Most of the games are being held in Durban (17 games), Centurion (12 games). All the teams play in different venues. However I think we should keep with the spirit of the game and keep the home\away table. We just need to check which team is home and away. (Jonathanburger (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

But on what basis do we decide which is the home/away team? We can refer the official schedule (http://www.iplt20.com/scores-and-schedule.html). If we refer to this, then both the results entered in the Results table seems incorrect. In the 1st match MI was the home team and in the 2nd match RR was the home team. Eastern Sphinx (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a table, similar to the one for the American Major League Soccer, would be more appropriate. 2009 Major League Soccer season

Davo499 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Some matches are played at neutral venues. For example the first match was between mumbai and chennai was played at a neutral venue. How are we going to depict such matches using the present Home/Away format?

Kppethe (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the table according to the official schedule. The team which is depicted first is considered as home team. For example in the first match it is given as Mumbai Indians V/S CSK. In this case I have taken Mumbai Indians as the home team. The next clash between the same teams is given as CSK V/S Mumbai Indians. Here we can assume CSK to be the Home team. This is the only viable option that I seem to find.

Kppethe (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Centurion or Pretoria

I'm not sure if Centurion classifies as a suburb of Pretoria, or whether is considered a separate city. Either way, when talking about host cities, it needs to be consistent.

Davo499 (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Centurion is a town that is located between Pretoria and Midrand in the Gauteng Province. Supersport Park is located in Centurion not Pretoria (Jonathanburger (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Flags against players

Since this is an Indian domestic tournament, should the flags against player names be the team's flag rather than their respective national flags? Currently, this only affects the Group stage section where either approach would work, but in a statistics section, this would cause confusion as the national flag would not provide any information regarding the players IPL team.

I know there have been numerous discussions about flags at various places, but was not able to find a definitive answer at MOS:FLAGS. I know the relevant section about Use of flags for sportspeople does mention that, "...Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with...". However, there are many up and coming players in the IPL who have not yet represented the national teams (for example, Karan Goel from Kings XI Punjab). For such cases, we definitely should not be showing the national flag against their names, as that could mislead readers that the player has represented the nation previously. However, showing the team flags for such cases, and the national flag in other cases would also lead to confusion.

Hence, I suggest that, since this is a tournament specific page, and to avoid confusion between some national and some teams' flags I wonder if we should display only the tournament teams' flags against all players?

--
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 06:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The flags next to the players name are to indicate from which country they are from, being a tournament that has so many different players from different countries in it. I would be a good indication to inform the reader from which country they player comes from. If you go to each teams article and look at the squads. Each player has their countries flag next to their name. (Jonathanburger (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

I don't deny that in a page that is specific to a team, the flag should indicate nationality (the team flag would be redundant in this case anyway). But in this page about an IPL tournament where players from multipe IPL teams are mentioned, I think most readers would be more interested in knowing which team they represent?
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 06:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In the player stats at the bottom of the page it would be advised to put the team that the player represents. "Just a suggestion" - Cant we put in the player stats, first the team, nationality and then the stats.

In the individual game results, i suggest that we keep the flag next to the players name, because the two team name are at the top of the results. (Jonathanburger (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

OK. I am not entirely convinced that the nationality of the player should be given much importance in what is essentially a "domestic" tournament. But, if people prefer to show the nationality as well, so be it.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 07:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

League progression table

Please have a look at the 2008 league progression table and you will see that the points that are in the table are a accumulative points. As the tournament progresses the team points will increase. If the team losses a game they don't loose their point. Their point stay they same. (Jonathanburger (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Yeah I agree, its not been updated. How does CSK lose 2 points after their third match? 68.43.177.132 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)iplfan

(SUGGESTION): Wouldn't it look better if the league progression table reflects the leader board (Teams and Standings) with the team at the top of the leader board at the top of the league progression table and going down? (Jonathanburger (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

FOR EXAMPLE

			Group Matches															Knockout
Team			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14		SF	F
	Deccan Chargers		2	4	6	8
	Delhi Daredevils		2	4	6
	Kings XI Punjab		0	0	2	4
	Chennai Super Kings		0	2	2	3	3
	Mumbai Indians		2	3	3
	Kolkata Knight Riders		0	2	2	3
	Rajasthan Royals		0	1	3	3
	Royal Challengers Bangalore		2	2	2	2	2
Note: The total points at the end of each group match are listed.											Win			Loss			No result
Note: Click on the total points (group matches) to see the summary for the match.

Super Over

The current format is confusing. In the current version, it appears as if Ajantha Mendis was bowling to Chris Gayle and Kamran Khan was bowling to Yusuf Pathan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.67.93 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The information here seems far too extensive. Why not something that conveys the bowler for the over, the two batsmen and the runs scored. Davo499 (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

wrong nrr

the nrr of the deccan chargers doesnt match the iplt20 site Vickyv33 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrected now. You can help to correct obvious mistakes as well :)
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 02:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

MI still in contention for semis spot

Before the end of the first game on 17/05/09, scenario under which MI can still qualify, under NRR:

1) Delhi win against Rajasthan & Bangalore and lose to MI. Their final points tally: 20 pts
2) Chennai win against Kolkata & Punjab. Their final points tally: 19 pts
3) Deccan Chargers win against Punjab & Bangalore. Their final points tally: 18 pts
4) RR lose against Delhi and Kolkata. Their final points tally:  : 13 pts
5) MI win against Delhi. Their final points tally: 13 pts
6) Bangalore lose against Delhi and Deccan Chargers. Their final points tally: 12 pts
7) Punjab lose against Chennai and Deccan Chargers. Their final points tally: 12 pts.

In such a scenario, the fourth semi final spot would be decided between Rajasthan and Mumbai on the basis of NRR.

Scenario no longer valid SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Should this section be removed now? Amol1186 (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection

This article was semi-protected a few weeks ago. Any idea why the protection was removed? This article is extremely prone to vandalism.
Abhijit Sathe (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The semi-protection was requested by me to tolerate the excess IP vandal at that Instance.Though i asked for Indefinite semi-protection , i was granted only a temporary one because as this is a current sport related article some valuable info will be from IP edits . so if the semi protection exists no edits can be made from IP's and new users Subash.chandran007 (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is so willing to add valuable information, why not register and use a user name instead? If you ask me, the whole Wikipedia website needs to be semi-protected so that unknown vandals are kept away. But that's besides the point. Thanks for your update... Abhijit Sathe (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Flags in the scorecard

Holy mother of MOS:FLAG: the scorecards are barely readable as-is, with so many flags in there. Now, I'm pretty pro-flag - I like them, I think they make things look more attractive and serve as somewhat useful - but with so many in such a small place they're cluttering them up and making it look much worse instead; plus, as a (semi-...) domestic tournament, nationality isn't really of the utmost important (although Indian/not-Indian, with regards to the quota of homegrown players in each matchday squad, would be, but I don't see a good way of solely indicating that). Anyone else think they must go? AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify – I'm referring to the player's nationality flags only; I like the team-colour icons. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.. too many flags. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Flags, like hyperlinks, do nothing for an article if they are repeated endlessly. I believe it is okay to use a flag the first time a place, team or person appears in a table but not thereafter; the same applies to hyperlinks when a term appears in the text for the first time. It is quite easy to remove the flagicons, so I've done it, and I suggest that if anyone wants to have flags, they should do so in moderation by first time application only. Rules of MOS:FLAG apply here. --Orrelly Man (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am reinstating the existence of many of the flags and team colour identifiers in the article. Unlike suggested above, MOS:FLAG does not advocate the removal of all or nearly all flagicons from a wikipage. For example, this page is used as a good example of how to use flagicons as listed by MOS:FLAG. I agree that the use of national flags in the results section produced excess clutter, as AllynJ suggested, so I have removed these. However, the team colour icons in this section aid navigability and so have been reinstated. The national teams of players signed for the IPL has also been reinstated - the use is comparable to use in other articles such as Pichichi Trophy. Juwe (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bells and whistles. Adds no value whatsoever. --Orrelly Man (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Chennai not in Semis yet

Someone (or maybe many people) has been repeatedly changing the background color for chennai in the points table to indicate that chennai is already through to the semis. While it is obvious that chennai is almost certainly through to the semis, "almost certainly" is not same as "mathematically certainly". considering the difference in runrates between chennai and rajasthan, they are 99.999% certain to go through, but that doesn't justify saying that they are already through to the semi finals. If we want to change their background color in that table, perhaps we should define the colors by saying that green stands for teams that are almost certain to go through to semi finals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtyags (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good call on the colors, I had changed it from (0) notation to colors only. But this looks neat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.151 (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As of May 20, Punjab is not out. There is a easy possibility. http://www72.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1824%2Bx)%2F(256.0%2B20)-(1869%2By)%2F(253.2%2B20)+%3C-.483 . Eg bangalore playing against a score of 120 and scoring only 50, they can go below NRR of punjab (-.49 <-.483). --199.67.140.42 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

this is hardly an "easy possibility". how many times have you seen teams getting all out for 50? Anyway, there have been too many changes to the points table colors recently, and I'm not going to change it any more. It just seems inconsistent to treat Deccan as having gone through to the semis and yet argue that Punjab should still be treates as having a chance. Mathematically, none of these is certain. It would just be consistent to only illustrate the mathematical certainties in the table. Rtyags (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The results of the mathematical analysis should be tempered with judgment -- for Deccan to be eliminated, Bangalore must defeat them by more than 203 runs. For Bangalore to be eliminated, Deccan must defeat them by 71 runs. A winning margin of 203 runs in T20 has never been observed, hence it's very safe to say that Deccan is through. On the other hand, the very same Bangalore team has lost to Rajasthan and Chennai by 75 runs and 92 runs respectively in this very same tournament, hence a loss of 71 runs to Deccan tomorrow cannot be categorically ruled out, though it would still be highly improbable. Strict NPOV would favor coloring all three (Deccan, Bangalore and Punjab) as being uncertain, while a more useful but arguably POV coloring would color Deccan as being through, based on the probabilities. Take your pick. As a compromise for such situations now and in future, I would suggest coloring them all uncertain but adding an explicit winning margin that must be achieved for each team to be selected or eliminated right in the article text, perhaps as an addendum to the table. That will prevent the endless reversions over the color of the table's rows, which is quite silly. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• By my calaculations, the (plausible) margins required are 68 to 70 and 201 or 202 runs, depending on the exact target. If Deccan bat second, they'd need to win with 49 to 57 balls remaining to eliminate Bangalore, assuming they hit the target exactly. If Deccan bat first, they can't be eliminated. —Raven42 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi chaps! I do realise that the possibilities listed for Punjab in the league table is just a temporary one and will be gone once we have the results of the match. Nevertheless, this is a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Information on Wikipedia should be based on sourced materials but not calculations as these. Good work with the article anyways. I’m not trying to belittle the effort put here, but please may I request the people involved in this not to do this again on an encyclopaedia. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Basic maths does not count as OR actually YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with basic maths, but a section like this (please see below the league standings table) would be OR. Isn't it? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)