Talk:2012 Asia Cup

File:Asia-cup-20122.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Asia-cup-20122.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Asia-cup-20122.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Salavat (talk) provided a fair-use rationale for this image on 3/3/2012 2:39 (UTC), as done in this edit. This image will not be deleted, unless ther is some other reason for doing so. Jfd34 (talk | contribs) 09:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Consider removing {{Refimprove}} tag from article

On 4/3/2012 2:07 (UTC), Intoronto1125 (talk | contribs) added the {{Refimprove}} tag to the article, indicating that it needs additional references. Now that the "Media coverage" section (which did not have references) has been deleted and necessary citations added in other places as well, I consider that the {{Refimprove}} tag should be removed.

Jfd34 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Intoronto1125TalkContributions 14:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan is not yet through to the final! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.180.45.88 (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

sri lanka ain't eliminated either. i dunno which person edited this but he must be weak in maths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.210.224 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Cant believe such a big gaffe in points table. Nobody have been in final and none have been eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.185.81 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan not in final yet, likely edit war (14:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC))

Many editors, particularly IP editors, are claiming that Pakistan have reached the finals, and their edits are being reverted and redone again. This can result in an edit war. Pakistan have not yet reached the finals. Here is one possibility:

If Bangladesh beat both India and Sri Lanka, both with bonus points, and India beat Pakistan with a bonus point, then:

• The points would be as follows: Bangladesh-10, India-9, Pakistan-9, Sri Lanka-0
• Pakistan and India would have the same number of wins (2)
• Pakistan and India have equal points and wins so head-to-head results will determine who plays in the final. India would have one win against Pakistan, while Pakistan would not have any win against India. So India would qualify and Pakistan would be out.

(See the points system to see why I have written this)

Please do not claim that Pakistan are in the finals, unless Bangladesh loses to India in today's match (which would assure a final slot for Pakistan). This is becoming an edit war, which can result in blocking of the warring editors by 3RR as well as semi-protection to the article, which allows only users with accounts who have made ≥ 10 edits and ≥ 4 days have passed since the first edit, to edit this article.

Jfd34 (talk | contribs) 14:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that Bangladesh beat India, Pakistan still have a chance of not qualifying for the finals. If India beat Pakistan with a bonus point and Bangladesh beat Sri Lanka with a bonus point then:

• India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would have the same number of points (9) and wins (2)
• Head-to-head results: India have one win against Pakistan and and one loss against Bangladesh, Pakistan has one win (Bangladesh) and one loss (India), Bangladesh have one win (India) and one loss (Pakistan).
• India, Bangladesh and Pakistan would have the same number of bonus points (1 each)
• So the teams playing in the final will be decided on net run rate. If both Bangladesh and India have a higher NRR than Pakistan, Pakistan is eliminated.

So please do not say that Pakistan are in the finals, unless and until Pakistan beats India (or loses without conceding a bonus point) in the match on 18/3/2012. Jfd34 (talk | contribs) 16:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite showing possibilities of Pakistan not qualifying for the finals, editors, IP addresses in particular, are still claimimg that Pakistan have qualified, and when their edits are undone, some other editor does this again. When I have reverted their edits, I have always provided a reason in the edit summary telling other editors to see the talk page for possibilities of Pakistan not qualifying, but some editors ignore this. This is an editing dispute. I have reverted yet another edit, and placed a hidden comment saying <!-- Pakistan are not in finals yet. See talk page for explanation. --> and I hope this should work. If it does not, and editors continue to say that Pakistan are in the finals, the only way to stop this is by nominating this article for temporary semi-protection, at least until the group stage is over, at Wikipedia:Requests for protection. Jfd34 (talk | contribs) 07:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan are in the finals, as of now Even if India win, they will still have 8 points. And extreme case Bangladesh thrash Sri Lanka and win the bonus point both Pakistan and Bangladesh will have 9. Either case Pakistan has JUST qualified for the final. The Determinator p t c 15:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pak have now qualified for finals after the Ind vs Pak match, no confusion. e^xtra999 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Add expiry parameter to {{pp-vandalism}}

On 17/3/2012 17:06 (UTC) MikeLynch applied semi-protection to the article with an expiration date of 23/3/2012 0:00 (UTC) for persistent vandalism by IP addresses, and also added {{pp-vandalism}} to notify that the page is protected but might have forgotten to add the expiration date (|expiry=23 March 2012 parameter) to the template. I am not an admimistrator, and do not know whether non-admins can add this parameter (even though it does not affect the protection). Please add this parameter as soon as possible because no expiry parameter places the article in Category:Wikipedia protected pages without expiry and people will think the protection is indefinite (unless they see the protection log). Jfd34 (talk | contribs) 10:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue with the font?

The font size for the article seems to be bigger than the Wikipedia standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.101 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not for this article, it is changed across Wikipedia as described here. -- SMS ^Talk 19:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 Asia 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/20120420153743/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=6730%3Btype%3Dtournament to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=6730%3Btype%3Dtournament

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)