Talk:Indian Premier League/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kochi Team

The BCCI and the IPL Executive Committee has ruled that the Kocchi Tuskers will no longer be a team. Shouldn't that be reflected on the page?

IPL table

This page need not read like a reading board of what all is controversial about IPL. We can have a seperate page for that. What we really need here is a table listing the winners and runners up for every year with the location, number of teams etc. Let this page look like the EPL or the NBA page please.

Sponsorship

DLF has only been assigned sponsorship only for the tournaments for a period of 5 years. So this sponsorship isn't applicable for the entire marquee in general. Even for coming seasons,the tournament would be called DLF Indian Premier League purely for formal and sponsorship reasons. So please keep the name of the tournament as it is now. Also please do not remove entire (especially the lead section) entirely. If you have certain objections to the content please discuss it here. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, Grant65 has edited away the entire sponsorship section and now those citations have been lost. Can someone retrieve them if possible. The sponsorship section is NOT in violation of Wikipedia policy because it is not flagrant self-promotion. There is, or were, citable sources for the sponsorship of the league. It is in violation of none of Wikipedia's policy. "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.241.215 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think that you can rewrite section in line with the Wikipedia policies, please do so, along with the citations. But do not add only information or spam links otherwise. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant section there is: "Those 'promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." I interpret that as including the main text of articles. The BBC and many other media organisations have similar rules. Sponsors have no intrinsic relevance to any article on a sporting competition or team. While it may be a fact that they are sponsors, it is not a notable fact, i.e. one of vital importance or interest. If, on the other hand, a sponsor become a team or competition owner, or there is some controversy involving the sponsor's relationship to the competition/team, then they would became worthy of mention.

Which brings me to another point: 59.183.241.215 (and similar IP numbers): what is your interest in this matter? I hope it does not constitute a conflict of interest. Grant | Talk 02:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if you read this part, where that THREE relevant sentences as opposed to one then you will see why this is relevant.

"Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style."

This is firstly not an article on the product and secondly it IS objective. Where is the hint of bias?

" Article topics must be third-party verifiable,"

If you have seen any IPL games (I doubt you are awake till 3/4/5am watching this where you are) or read of this elsewhere in the online media, you will see it is not hearsay and biased. It is third-party verifiable on many sources.

"commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic"

there's a part here that says MAJOR organizations ASSOCIATED with this topic are acceptable. Which part of this fails the Wikipedia test?

Now just because you have a some sort of anti-corporate world-view doesn't mean anything with sponsors is biased. The citations are in place if you see the bottom.

And at any rate if you read the sponsorship SECTION and not just the title headline, you will not it leads up to something. Where the money comes in goes into how the league is funded, how the player purchases are, and where the money is pooled.

unsigned comment added by 59.183.241.215 (talk) 2:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, and by the way, if you see the television rights column you will see that mentions companies and sponsorships. Looks like you didn't bother to read what it says, but was simply put off by the word sponsorship. I know the game is all about eating money these days. 20/20 is not cricket to the connoisseurs of the game. But alas, it doesn't matter what we fans of the truly beautigul game think; It's still happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.253.213 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The only way that sponsors should be mentioned in Wikipedia sports articles is if they have naming rights to a competition or are embedded in the name, as in Pura Cup or Bangalore Royal Challengers.

For an article on a highly-commercialised sporting competition comparable to IPL, see Major League Baseball. There is no mention of sponsors by name. The article on its most prominent team, New York Yankees, mentions a sponsor in 1964, in relation to a material issue, but that is all.

The suggestion that my world view is "anti-corporate" would seem to be a breach of Wikipedia's requirement to assume good faith. Moreover, if I am anti-corporate then so is Wikipedia in general, along with every other encyclopedia, the BBC and other credible news organisations. I ask again: what is your interest in this matter? Grant | Talk 23:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Then have you read the television part? What does SONY have to do it with? if it is not a sponsor. There is an explanation in this paragraph as to how the money is allotted. As for YOUR breach of good faith the suggestiong that I have a conflict of interest would do the same as yours. What is your intesrest in the matter? Suggest you stick to the 2020 tourney down under b/c you don't kjnow, or hear, half the matter in this regard. Have you been to India? Have you ehard a word about corporate relations in the 202?59.183.241.156 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The rules and style are the same for all sports articles, regardless of country. Sony owns the broadcast rights, which means they have a stake in the governance of the competition. If and only if a sponsor has control some control of the sport (as is normally the case with broadcasters) and this can be supported with a reference, then it too would be worthy of mention. Otherwise sponsors are completely interchangeable and irrelevant, except to themselves and their business associates. Which brings me back to the old question: I have no interest in IPL, apart from being a cricket fan. I guess it's the same for you? Grant | Talk 05:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sony have a stake in the GOVERNANCE of the competition? Can you back up these unsubstantiated comments anywhere? Furthermore, have you what does the oofficial website and its sponsorship have to do with this? Why didn't you edit this out? 59.183.241.111 (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting edits to an earlier version with no sponsorship info. Please stop reverting/undoing edits in this regard unless the issue is entirely sorted out here. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Governance: any company that controlled the broadcast rights would have a say in fixturing for instance. The official website is a commercial product, but it is directly related to this subject. Unlike airlines or beer. Grant | Talk 13:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

what is this? your own defintition? the fixtures are not altered by sony's demands. And if you read the what i said above, the AMOUNT coming in was directly relevant to the league. Kingfisher (not beer, btw. figure out who's sponsoring it) and Pepsi, etc have PAID for this. The passage shows where the funds go and how its directed. READ the passage first !!! 59.183.241.111 (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Furthermore, why was the editing sealed at grant65's version of this page? If you see the edit history and discussion, I brought this into discussion while he was merely removing the section till it suited him. See above LeaveSleaves: you said "If you think that you can rewrite section in line with the Wikipedia policies, please do so, along with the citations. But do not add only information or spam links otherwise." You told me to rewrite, where's the violation? I'm showing and arguing why it is relevant. Should we simply say an unknown sponsor paid XX?? Does that make any sense? Does it make Wikipedia look professional? Or is it not a vias on the other side that sponsors are removed for the sake of it. 59.183.241.135 (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My primary purpose of semi-protecting the page was to decrease the edit war that's going on for quite some time. And as for the version I chose for this is entirely irrelevant, since I'd have suffered similar accusations from other side. So the important point here is to discuss this issue out in a sensible way rather that pointing out each other's mistakes. And also, although I know it's not my position to say this, I'd appreciate if you'd open an account as this would streamline the discussion a lot. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous:

"What is this? your own definition?" No, it's simply standard practice in Wikipedia to mention the owners of sports teams and broadcasters, but not sponsors.

Your attempt to show the broader relevance of the sponsors does not make sense.

"Should we simply say an unknown sponsor paid XX??" No, we should ignore the matter, as is the case with every other sports article in Wikipedia, unless the sponsorship becomes notable for some reason other than the mere fact of its fleeting existence.

"Does that make any sense?" Yes. Consider (for example) the case of sporting competitions that have dozens of sponsors. They would take up a large part of each article, would be subject to constant revision and, I suggest, no-one is interested apart from them and their cronies (breaching not only WP:ADVERT but WP:UNDUE — that something is a fact does not make it encyclopedic).

"Does it make Wikipedia look professional?" Absolutely. Much more than if we indulged the vanity and status of businesses, by including tedious lists of commercial hangers-on. This is, as I have said repeatedly, standard practice not only of Wikipedia, but any other encyclopedia you care to name, and most major media organisations.

"Or is it not a bias on the other side that sponsors are removed for the sake of it?" WP policy is certainly biased against covert advertisements masquerading as articles and undue emphasis.

I have already declared that I have no conflict of interest here. Since you have avoided more subtle questioning — and remembering that such a plethora of IP numbers can be traced with great precision — do you have a conflict of interest that you need to declare?

Grant | Talk 11:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that someone (59.183.252.116 (talk)) has again installed a "Sponsorship" section in the article. Having looked around various sports event pages on wikipedia, it seems that Grant is largely correct that sponsorship arrangements are not generally mentioned, and certainly not in as much detail as shown here, but that TV coverage is often detailed. I suggest that the English Premier League Football article is used as a model for this article (it seems an appropriate comparison) to work off, where the details of sponsorship are not explored, but the main sponsor is mentioned. In the IPL article this could mean that the "Fixtures" and "Sponsorship Rights" are combined into one section called "Competition format and sponsorship". This section could have 2 subsections:

• "Competition". This would essentially contain what is currently in the "Fixtures" section, but it could also mention that the top 2 teams will qualify for the Champions Twenty20 League.
• "Sponsorship". In this section the only things mentioned would be: the naming rights sponsor (ie DLF); what the total sponsorship pool comes to; and how these funds are distributed.

I also suggest that the "Television Rights" and "Official website" sections become subsections of a new "Media coverage" section (and that the "Official website" section is cleaned up a bit)

What does everyone think? Juwe (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit to the page, which comes with the edit summary "edit to Juwe reccomendation", wasn't quite what I had in mind. The new page is essentially just the old page with this extra sentence:

"For a term of five to ten years the IPL has brought the BCCI a princely sum of $1 billion, making the body even more lucrative than its previous tag that made already made it the richest board in world cricket."

In any case, it might be best to have a discussion here before implementing changes about these matters. Juwe (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, inclusion of sponsors with naming rights in the first paragraph is consistent with some other articles on sporting competitions.

However, I do think that it a separate section devoted to DLF's sponsorship opens the door (again) to a dreary list of companies with no involvement in the IPL, apart from the handing over of a wad of cash. Grant | Talk 03:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Squads

Perhaps the squads should be removed from this page, as they are already present on the individula team pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.153.87 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Indian Premier League

I have removed the Fixtures section from the article as it discusses primarily the fixtures for coming season. So please add all the relevant information in that particular article. LeaveSleaves (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A separate article must be created for the 2008 season. All info which can change after this season should move out of this article and into the 2008 season.For eg,if the player signings are for one year we have to move the team rosters to the respective team articles and mark it by year. The NBA article is a decent prototype. The information relating to the LEAGUE should remain on this article everything else should be moved out.this is the only way to keep articles relevant and useful. ajoy (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Player Costs

Why are player costs in United States Dollars instead of Indian Rupees? 208.2.17.2 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The auction itself used USD as the currency for bidding. The Indian Rupee valuations given by the media are roughly based on currency conversion. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The players were auctioned for USDHotsshot (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Franchises article

Just in case anyone wants to know - I redirected "Indian Premier League Franchises" to this article since it was an exact duplicate of the "Franchises" section of this article. -- Chuq (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please put up the logos if each of the teams too in the main article for completeness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.136.1 (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2008 (UTCItalic text)

Unfortunately that isn't possible. See this from the 2008 IPL talk page. Juwe (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Need to do something about the column that notes the Captains, as it is out of date - need to either label it explicitly as being the original captains, with a link to the latest, or remove it entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.9.143 (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Player Signings

Will auctions for players be held each at the beginning of each season? If so, should this section be on the season article?? - Allied45 (talk) 07:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand, the player signings are for at least 3 to 5 years. So there won't be another auction soon, unless a lot of new players (particularly from the England team, which currently hasn't allowed any of the players to play for IPL). There is provision of player transfers, but that too won't begin before 3rd season. LeaveSleaves (talk) 08:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if they don't go in the season articles, I think the list of players would make more sense on each individual team articles. Before the auctions, of course it made sense to list the "pool" of players here, but now they are just duplicated here. -- Chuq (talk) 11:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd partially agree with you Chuq. Although the lists are simply duplicates from original articles (or vice versa), I'd still say they might be an important part of the article in order to signify the auction, which remains an integral part of the league formation. What we could consider is shelving down the list a little. Perhaps remove the information about coaches etc. LeaveSleaves (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chuq, the list of player signings for each team seems to clutter the page needlessly and obscures more important information. I think the list of players makes more sense on the individual franchises page. If the auction is considered important I'd suggest adding a separate article for the IPL 2008 Player Auction. Forzaps (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sohail Tanvir got sold for U$100,000. http://www.hindu.com/2008/03/12/stories/2008031256412100.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.43.51 (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

National Affiliation

Consistent with other articles within WikiProject Cricket it seems to make sense to refer to the national flags (whether real or derived in the case of the West Indies which I am conscious is a sporting entity rather than a political entity) rather than the flags of the constituent teams such as Jamaica or Guyana as has been the trend of some of the edits to this page. Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Why do you keep removing the link to cricket20 (thetwenty20cup.co.uk) from the site, we are covering the IPL but you keep removing the link

Our site is updated 24 hours a day seven days a week yet you still ink to the Official Site which hasnt been updated in a month, how does that work?

You link to cricinfo so why not cricket20?

Please read WP:EL. thetwenty20cup.co.uk is not a suitable external link for this page; Cricinfo is allowed because it is one of the two go-to sources for cricket, and is a reliable source to boot. This page has been semi-pro'd because of various sites repeatedly adding their own links despite numerous warnings; once the semi-protection runs out please don't attempt to re-add them as they will still be removed and the page potentially protected again. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Cricinfo is allowed because it is one of the two go-to sources for cricket" According to who, you? cricket20 is the ONLY website dedicated to twenty20 cricket, we have covered EVERY Twenty20 game ever played in international or domestic levels. Why should you decided what links go on the page, We know we are a source for news, we know that when a Twenty20 story breaks people come to our site. I thought wikipedia was open source, allowing people to contribute and giving people fresh information not just the same old same old like linking to cricinfo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.62.7 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise; I phrased it poorly, but the fact of the matter is that Cricinfo & CricketArchive are both reliable for being used as sources and suitable for being linked as an external source. Bear in mind you are referring to it as "we" suggests you have a conflict of interest over the addition of the link - which doesn't really help over it being a suitable addition. Please read the additional guidelines for more information: WP:EL, WP:SPAM. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link to TalkTwenty20? This is the only forum that is devoted to Twenty20 cricket which provides a specific forum to discuss the IPL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.54.43 (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL carefully before adding such links. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 10:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mohali article title

Shouldn't it be "IPL Mohali" and not "Mohali Twenty20 franchise"? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

All the franchise articles during their initial stages of development (when their names weren't announced) were titled in the current Mohali article format. In any case it hardly makes any sense to change article name now since the official name would eventually be announced soon enough and you'd have to move the article again. In case you see this change important enough you can also redirect IPL Mohali to the changed article later. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I didnt find any reliable sources in the web that says that the name of the IPL Mohali team is Punjab kings. and use two different names to denote the IPL Mohali team. Unless an official announcement comes from the team owners, I think we should revert the name back to Mohali Twenty20 franchise. CSumit (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Although Cricinfo uses the same name (Punjab Kings) throughout the site. LeaveSleaves (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Indian Cricket League

nothing about the IPL being set up in response the Indian Cricket League? 86.26.63.135 (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The IPL was being considered long before the ICL was established,the ICL however threatened the authority of BCCI and speeded up the establishment of the IPLHotsshot (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hotsshot (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the ICL should be mentioned through. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Player list

How about removing the players list from the article. It is unnecessary as the information is already duplicated in the team articles. Instead we can have a section explaining how the auction worked, mention the bidding amount for some players and also explain how other players were selected. The list from the auctions can be moved to a separate article titled 2008 IPL player signings or something else. If there's consensus on this proposal, then I'll remove the player list. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed move for a separate article. Plus I'd suggest that similar lists on franchise articles be also be removed and accordingly incorporated in the said new article. The franchise articles would then contain the necessary list of player names only. LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Just the list of the teams with their logos and stuff like that is enough here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.136.1 (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree,a new article should be made for the teams Hotsshot (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The player lists are already in each of the respective team articles. There's no point in them being here or in yet more new articles. —Moondyne click! 06:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy With PCB sections talks about ICL

I think the Pakistan cricket board section here is irrelevant as it talks about ICL only.

However, the current Shoaib Akhtar controversy can be added under this section. Vote please :)

WikiOn ( t | c ) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The trophy

Doesn't the trophy deserve special mention? It is the costliest trophy in the world, and probably the only one to have gold, diamond, ruby and yellow sapphire all together in it (mentioned by Ravi Shastri during the final game, so that airing could be used as a reference if someone slaps a ). --soum ^talk 19:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would be good if a section like this Cricket World Cup#Trophy was created. Of course, we need to know the relevant details and get a decent picture of the trophy, but fundamentally I support the idea. Juwe (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Images won't be a problem. Since we are talking about the trophy itself, having a copyrighted image would fall under Fair Use. --soum ^talk 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please upload a picture of the trophy. A section on the trophy already exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.151.130 (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

The controversies mostly relate to the 2008 season i think it should be moved to the article on hte 2008 season .Any body disagree?ajoy (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is really embrassing to say having individual world class players will not help win matches . We indians r known to cheer the players even if we dont win matches sayin he has done his job the others didnt, and it goes on and on and on . when will we become a team .Just give few months to mend these so called individual stars i will c to it that they will b better than the australians . Do the board have the guts to challenge me if s take as post of the coach is vacant so y look for a foreign coach when ther is a challenge in our own land .do u guys hear me. I will c to that we will become a great team and not GREAT INDIVIDUAL PLAYER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.158.151 (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.36.42 (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this topic can't be empty ever, you can see this year also Lalit Modi facing some trouble for not organizing match in some specific states of India and many more like Andrew Flintoff facing difficulties in joining the match.(Kush Soni 15:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

IPL v ICL - out of the box please

The stand off between BCCI and the Zee Group over the IPL-ICL situation makes me wonder - are they really doing it right? My comments may seem sarcastic or degrading for the ICL but by creating the two leagues, the BBCI and Zee have paved the way for making T20 cricket more competitive. Why cant the two groups consider the two leagues similar to the premier league and the first division in English football. The obvious options would be to have the IPL as the Premier League and the ICL as the first division - going by the quality of players on those leagues. Things like the cities linked to each club could be sorted out because it will also bring in the spirit of derbies. Two clubs from the same city would be a great treat to watch with their respective batch of fans. I suppose that the two parties will one day come to this agreement. And imagine what could have happened had they done this already. The Hyderabad team from IPL - Deccan Chargers would be in the first division (relegated) while the Hyderabad Heroes from ICL would have been in the premier league. Come on guys, please think out of the box. We want to see both the ICL and the IPL create the same hype and fun. We want both Tony Greig and Ravi Shastri do commentary for a match. We want to see SRK and Mithunda fight for supremacy in the Kolkata derby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.36.42 (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I think other television's channel should also show matches of IPL...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.79.3 (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Salaries

Do the top players get paid $1m/year each? Or do they get paid $1m over 3 years? Tri400 (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2009 (jokjpoiokpkopkkpiljiu

top players get like 1 - 1.5 mil a year but the lesser players get like 700- 800 thousand a year, just like aussie rules football or Heinekikn cup--Gargabook (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

The article looks like an advertisement from Modi himself. Many experts have criticized the IPL. There should be section that covers criticism from all quarters. User:Timofeyevich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC).

Other controversies

Why is the controversy part only limited to conflicts with national boards ? There are plenty of other criticisms levelled at the IPL, notably overcommercialization (DLF "maximums", Citi "moments of succcesses" etc), cheerleaders and 65 metre boundaries. Why arent these mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.100.52 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

What about the current ongoing issue? Modi.. match fixing.. betting..financial fraud etc etc ? None of this seems to be mentioned - Incase people are not aware, it looks like Modi will be removed from this post. And yet non of it is mentioned. I hope IPL is not sponsoring this page! This article seems to only show the positive spin .. as if Modi himself wrote this!

And what about the criticisms on their sponsorship phrases? "Malinga thows a pepsi full toss to Kallis. Kallis has hit it onto the coca-cola legside. They're going for a Hero-Honda single, no wait there going for a Vodafone two runs. Oh nooooo.. it looks like its a Godrej run out! And thats the end of Kallis.. And it looks like its the Max mobile time out. But wait, the camera is now pointing at that dumb MRF balloon in the air, I mean 'blimp', they sponsored the pace foundation which is responsible for all the great bowlers in india, please look at that blimp and buy MRF tyres. OK, back to the max mobile time-out" -- LogicDictates (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added current ongoing issue. -- 12afser12 (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Global Following?

the article about global following is extremely biased, ipl is not that popular internationally, in australia and england the only ppl who follow it are indian students. IPL is not a major international league —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabook (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you know ? Just Guessing ? SyberGod (chat)

Contradiction

the article states that the average wage for players is 2.5 million pounds (6 million dollars) but says the highest paid player flintoff is paid no more than 1.5 million dollars. Biased writing from a person who is obviously way too patriotic--Gargabook (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

where ? SyberGod (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Players in Indian Premier League

Please contribute to the above article. --Budhajeewa (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How does the auction system actually work?

I don't really know anything about the IPL (heard it mentioned and came to this article) and whilst I understand that some sort of auction for players happens, the article didn't really explain how it works. This is the sort of thing that's probably obvious to people who follow the IPL, but for someone like myself, who has never followed the sport, perhaps there could be a brief outline of how the system works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.174.51 (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indian Premier League/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 19:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is a quite a long way from GA at the moment. The main reason is that there are long sections without any references, and this is a major requirement for a GA. There are also issues of broad coverage as there seem to be some things missing. I have left some general points below, but I would suggest asking for another editor to take a look and maybe copy-edit the article before renominating. Once the issues below are addressed, maybe submit the article at WP:PR for further review.

Referencing

This is enough on its own for the article to fail:

• The sections on the first three seasons are all unreferenced. The fourth season section is partially referenced, but not all the facts given have a source; given that these are living persons being discussed, a reference is essential for all claims.
• The IPL Trophy section is unreferenced.
• The League Organisation section is also partially referenced, but not close to enough to satisfy the GA criteria. Again, most, if not all, facts need a reference. The same for Television rights and sponsorships.

Broad coverage

There is quite a lot missing from this article. These are just some of my suggestions

• History: For each season, which teams did well? Which teams did badly? Which team were the favourites? Who were the leading run-scorers, wicket-takers and who topped the tables for strike rate, economy rate, etc? (In other words, who were the star performers?) How popular was it? How many watched it? What was coverage like? What did critics say (and the IPL has had a LOT of coverage!)? If I remember, the second season in South Africa was quite a big deal and there were unfounded worries over its popularity: I think more needs saying on the relocation that year and why there was such a security worry at the time. I also think much more is needed on the corruption scandal in the fourth season.
• Does the trophy really need its own section, or could it be merged into the history section?
• I like the franchises section a lot; could the text in the table be made larger?
• I can't remember if the timeout rule is the same as the mid-innings break. Either way, I remember a lot of criticism in the "conservative" cricket press that this was just an excuse for more adverts. Also, there has been criticism of the over-use of advertising (e.g. DLF Maximum)
• Player signings: I don't know how hard it would be (I can't remember how many players are involved for each season) but it may be good to list the player auction results in a sortable table, including nationality, appearances, cost, runs, etc.
• I think the table on winnings broadcasters for each nation should go as it does not really add to the article. (Also the table on profits seems a little messed up at the moment)
• Global following: Only mentions the UK at present: what about other countries?
• What about copy-cat leagues? Something could be said about other countries following (or trying to follow) suit such as Australia.
• More could be made of the furore over the ICL: this is briefly mentioned in the lead. What about a "background" section which includes this and how the various parties planned and brought about the IPL?
• What about the worries over the effect of the IPL on world cricket and making players choose not to play other forms of cricket (e.g. Chris Gayle)? The press is always running stories about how the IPL will ruin international cricket, Test cricket, ODIs, and just about everything else! This could be covered briefly. Also, the effects on technique and maybe something about how it has influenced cricket shots and tactics. Even what people have said about the quality of play (I've read judgements ranging from amazing to mediocre). What about the opinions of players, journalists, etc.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is not quite up to standard, but I have not looked at it closely enough to say that it fails. At the very least, a copy-edit is needed, but I don't think the prose is too far away from OK.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   This is a big problem. Many sections are unreferenced or just partially referenced where two or three sentences are given a ref but not the whole paragraph. As such, without references, most of the article would constitute OR. I have not looked closely at the reliability of the sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I think there are several areas the article should cover which are missing, outlined above. However, the existing content (except for a few parts listed above) seems focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I'm not convinced by the non-free rationale for the logo, but I'm no expert on this and I think an image expert is needed to decide. However, the 2011 Champions photo is almost certainly not justified and should be removed. It is not a significant photo, the photo (as opposed to the event) is not mentioned in the article and it is easily replaceable by another photograph of the team (albeit not at that moment, but I don't believe that precise moment is significant enough to justify fair use.) The fact that the rationale notes the ground was closed to the public suggests the rights holders wanted to protect their copyright.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I have not considered prose or MoS too much and this should also be looked at closely before the article is renominated. When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. However, I would suggest that the article needs a lot of work before re-submission. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

INR equivlent currency

A lot of the indian readers would probebly like to see the INR equivlent of the currency in lakh and crores. I would really like to see your thoughts on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodspeed (talk • contribs) 16:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Messed up?????

Some messed up with the winners of IPL seasons Please sort it out. OK I fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.19.175 (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

ipl

ipl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.37.8 (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Lacks cohesion and content organisation

Considering the importance of the main subject, the article contents need to be standardized. The article is not in a proper flow and lacks references. It also has many instances of biased content and out of heading conext contents which needs reorganization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abksrv (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Logo

The given logo is the incorrect logo for the IPL. It is the shortened/acronym logo used for IPL and within the DLF/Pepsi IPL Logo. The Official Logo has a cricket player with a bat, the wordings "Indian Premier League" on the right side. The Official Website for the IPL has the official logo. Here is a link to the official IPL Logo; http://www.logoeps.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Indian-Premier-League-IPL-logo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.6.122 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

 Completed --10:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)FelixSeba7 (talk)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and elsewhere online. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Working on the Article

I reworded the introduction, as some of it was just a series of facts. Now, it's more in line with the Wikipedia prose style.
I'm intending to look at the rest of the article, although it seems okay at a quick glance.
I think the TV rights table should list countries first, then company, as with 2015 Cricket World Cup. I'm thinking of also splitting the table into 2 tables: Current broadcasting rights (for 2015 season), and previous broadcasting rights. These will be sorted alphabetically by country name (in the case of multiple countries, by the name of the country first alphabetically), and I'll try to find a source for every current deal. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Missing a few citations (especially on the former broadcasters), but this is a lot clearer. I remove the unclear tag from the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That Rivalry section

'The rivalry is so intense.' Could someone who knows how to Wiki clean that up perhaps? 223.219.231.26 (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I would just delete the entire sentence. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

change

1. test team to be excluded.

2. compensation to Indian Cricket League for patent.

3. players to represent their states/zones - North, Central, East, West, South-West, TN and South-East.

4. league format one match.

5. one game per weeknight.

ASG

106.192.28.243 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian Premier League. 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/20150406041555/http://cricshed.com:80/ipl-2015/sony-kix-tv-channel-live-telecast-the-ipl-2015-matches-in-tamil-telugu/ to http://cricshed.com/ipl-2015/sony-kix-tv-channel-live-telecast-the-ipl-2015-matches-in-tamil-telugu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 11:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Link works and seems useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian Premier League. 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/20150614221457/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=117%3Btype%3Dtrophy to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=117%3Btype%3Dtrophy

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) 09:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

Please add the logo File:Indian Premier League.svg 202.88.250.120 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: This file ([[File:Indian Premier League.svg]]) is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content, but it is not used in any articles. Unless some reason to retain it is given, the file will be deleted after Wednesday, 3 May 2017. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2017

My request is to change Lasith Malinga's wickets from 149 to 151. 117.197.251.117 (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Already done in this edit. Gulumeemee (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Can't edit the page

When I am trying to edit something on this page,why its not letting me to edit? It is showing that "You need privileges (means like permission) to edit this page." Why its showing like that? Can someone help me please. Limeylen (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:SEMI Spike 'em (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Template

How come the 'Current Champions' field is not being displayed despite the field being present while source editing? Prat1212 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Check the infobox documentation: it has a perfect illustration of what to do. Spike 'em (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2018

Rafid2084 (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

International broadcasters

Arab League Arab world OSN Sports (2015–2017)[84]

                       Bein Sports(2018-present)[93]

BeIN Sports acquire IPL rights for MENA region https://www.insidesport.co/bein-sports-acquire-ipl-rights-mena-region-0703042018/[93]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2018

Current Captain Rafid2084 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018

The current champion is ambiguous and the right one is people's Chennai Super Kings(CSK). Hariwaran (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor 21:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the African Union (free).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Change most successful team.

Please change the most successful team as the most successful franchise in the tournament is chennai super kings with 3 tournament wins and 7 final appearances. The team also has the highest win percentage of 61.3% and have qualified to the playoffs in every IPL season they have played — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guptasuyash66 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Mumbai Indians(4 titles) Akshat2122 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2018

Hello, Hop you are doing good. We are local news agency from Indore. Please allow us to edit this page. We will share latest news related to ipl on this page.

Thanks & Regards Ravi Editor IPL Score Ipl2019 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DannyS712 (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If you just want to add links to another website, like you have done with your other edits, then that is WP:REFSPAM and is forbidden. Spike 'em (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Brand Value

Hey folks, I had a bout of insomnia (Yes, I'm still awake at 8:45 in the morning), so I came across this, and decided to try to fix the copy/pasted section. I've tried to get the gist of it into the section, while avoiding the copy/paste issues. One thing I did is dropped the table, because looking at it, the average reader would not know that there were other franchises, not mentioned in the report that I could see. Any problems, please update/revert as needed. Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

49.248.95.157 (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

ipl stands for indian premier legue

Already mentioned in the article – Þjarkur (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2019

please change "According to BCCI, the 2015 IPL season contributed ₹12,543.5 billion to the GDP of the Indian economy." to "According to BCCI, the 2015 IPL season contributed ₹11.5 billion to the GDP of the Indian economy." 103.82.78.153 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Vandalism reverted, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• IPL Trophy pic.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sponsor

I think there is no reason of displaying the title sponsors with their country's flag. Arjunuws (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree, they are being used for decorative purposes. Spike 'em (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020

I understand the category for edit .I Will follow that category. Fade258 (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Spike 'em (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2019

Current captain 155.247.51.131 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• IPL Trophy.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

Map of Republic of India is not in its true shape. Requested to replace it with Govt. of India's approved map of India. 218.248.0.134 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The north-west of India are disputed territories (I assume this is what you want included), so we do not necessarily have to follow the Indian government on this. You'd need to gain consensus to change the wikipedia standard map for India. Spike 'em (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent reverts

@Prolix: I have absolutely no idea what the confusion is. You asked me to provide a citation. For what?

• IPL is unarguably a city-based franchise league. The franchise owners can name their franchise after the city (like Mumbai Indians), state (like Rajasthan Royals), brand (like Deccan Chargers) or literally anything else. Here is a citation for proof that they are "city-based franchises" [1]. I can provide more citations if you'd like.
• It is a fact that IPL was established in 2007 [2].
• "usually contested between March and May" is ambiguous. The 2008 season concluded in June, the 2020 season took place between September and November. As an editorial choice, it is better to not mention the months, at least in the lead.
• "in India" is redundant in a sentence that says: The Indian Premier League (IPL) is a professional Twenty20 cricket league in India usually contested between March and May of every year by eight teams representing eight different cities or states in India. I can obviously not provide a reference for that, but you can take the word of someone who has written GA-quality articles. Dee03 07:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• According to your citation the teams were established by bidding for 8 different cities. However the team names clearly don't reflect that. My current understanding of the teams is that each represents a city, state or a region, so calling it a city based franchise would be inaccurate and would only cause confusion since that's not how the teams are named.
• I have already changed the date of establishment to 2007
• The IPL IS usually contested during those dates, the two years you mentioned appear to be exceptions and not the norm. Even this year the IPL was scheduled to be held in that time frame until a certain pandemic happened. This is why I added the word 'usually' to the sentence.
• I understand what you mean, but I felt that the name of the league should not be used as an implicit implication of its location, once again I may be wrong. Here, the sentence could be rephrased as, "The Indian Premier League (IPL) is a professional Twenty20 cricket league in India usually contested between March and May of every year by eight teams." That solves the first issue as well since it seems team names don't solely represent cities or states (Deccan chargers for example). But again, I think your initial phrasing would work as well. Do let me know. Prolix 💬 08:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Once again, these teams do not represent any city, state or region. They are franchise teams that are simply based in a city and owned by commercial entities. Regardless of what the franchise owners decide to name the team, the franchise is still city-based. Deccan Chargers named their team after their company Deccan Chronicle, that doesn't change the fact that they are a Hyderabad-based franchise. Kings XI Punjab wanted to shift their base from Mohali to some other city, but could not do so [3]. More citations that confirm that these are city-based franchise teams: [4] [5] [6]
• Good to know.
• Yes, except "usually" was not part of that sentence on the two occasions you reverted me. The current wording "usually contested between March and May", although vague, is a major improvement to the awkwardly worded and factually incorrect "contested during March or April and May." (without "usually"). I'd still not mention the months for the sake of precision, but that would be a subjective editorial decision.
• The sentence reads "cricket league in India usually contested between March and May of every year by eight teams representing eight different cities or states in India". One of the usages of "in India" is redundant and needs to go.

Your suggestion is acceptable, although there is room to make it more informative. Dee03 03:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think the references you linked clearly demonstrate that the IPL is a city-based franchise. I was unaware of the fact due to the way the teams are named, I think that solves this issue. Please do make this change, add the citations that you linked here and possibly an editor note as well to avoid any confusion.
• I feel the months make an important addition and should be left in there for the time being as it seems the IPL will be following the March-May time frame next year as well. [7] [8]
• Regarding the phrasing of the first sentence, "The Indian Premier League (IPL) is a professional Twenty20 cricket league usually contested between March and May of every year by eight city-based franchise teams in India." could work but again there's always room for improvement. Prolix 💬 06:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

change 4 to 5 titles won by mumbai indians 103.41.38.187 (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Already done - Dee03 03:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

Rishsome 28 (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

the IPL is the most attended cricket league in the world and in 2014 *please add IT* was ranked sixth and so on

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Auctions

Does this deserve to be under the series of auctions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris920 (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2021

I want to edit something 118.107.139.130 (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Punjab Kings

Kings XI Punjab have changed their team name to Punjab Kings. Lokesh Rahul captain of Punjab Kings, Anil Kumble head coach of Punjab KingsmaKingEureka (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

RCB runners up of year 2011 not 2012 106.206.26.230 (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2021

The finalists for IPL 2021 have already been decided, so can you please update that in the historical results table as well?

Also, what is the procedure to become an established editor for this page? I am an avid fan of cricket, IPL and statistics, and would love to be able to contribute to this page. Dtb8 (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This page simply requires that you have 10 edits, and have created your account more than three days ago. See WP:AUTOCONFIRMED for details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2021

BobbyNohara (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Please allow me edit

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. We can't allow you to change the article. You have to tell an editor what you want to be changed in the article and one of us will do it for you. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2021

BobbyNohara (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The new champions are Chennai Super Kings.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Ferien (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021

Edit: Under "Financials," add infographic/image showing detailed business model for 2019 IPL, from businessbar.net (https://businessbar.net/all/ipl-680m-revenues-and-not-out/). This source is comprehensive and straightforward.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/LGL1EDafOTyGLByCX-J1mZBkOayPDxmJyAK54y0zc-FYvXQGS87ytGCCWbZZB6aGi6zrXQBODK32fSZjnB1NFh-AQO6JuV7t75PlG8Wt83bi16mehYvQhl-8tDkA4jJyjuSMsTv1 DavidESPN (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We can't use copyrighted images. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Dinesh Kumar

As a cricketer 2409:4072:701:A1C2:F857:4AB6:54C8:A4A1 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

DC/SRH

Can somebody fix this article? Deccan Chargers and Sunrisers Hyderabad are two different teams, but this lists both of them as same. Clog Wolf _Howl 05:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't IPL team represent ten City?

Gujrat team before sold was called as Ahemdabad team and Punjab as Chandigarh team. Theses teams don't represent these city?Education is strength (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

The latest edition of IPL is 2022, which is not updated on the side panel. Xoyson (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Thanks for reaching it but usually we add there only after the completion of the season. Fade258 (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Is women's T20 challenge is related to IPL?

If not there no need to write about it in history section. WT20 challenge have its article and see also section have its wikilink, that irrelevant info should be removed.Education is strength (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Viewership statistics, section in broadcast section needed.

There in no info about it in this article. News media every annum report about the viewership. IPL is a TV event in most part, so it is imp to write about it and add graphics about its viewership since it's started. If any expert editor is reading this he can work on it.Education is strength (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary to add info regarding this. Fade258 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022 (2)

https://www.tabbiemath.com/social-impact.html

There are a lot of grammatical mistakes in the "Controversy" section of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayanaman (talk • contribs)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2022

Handscombketty (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

All the IPL 2023 matches will be played in India. The official IPL 2023 schedule will be released by BCCI in the month of December 2022. There is a total of 74 T20 matches to be played in IPL 2023 as we know that there will be 10 teams in IPL 2023.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2023

Please rework the first two sentences, removing this:

The Indian Premier League (IPL) is a men's T20 franchise cricket league of India. It is annually contested by ten teams based out of seven Indian cities and three Indian states.

and adding this instead:

The Indian Premier League (IPL) is a men's T20 franchise cricket league in India. It is annually contested by ten teams based out of seven cities and three states.

"of India" sounds awkward (it probably doesn't belong to the Centre, and even if it does, that's not as important as the country where it's located), and since the first sentence says that it's Indian, the second sentence doesn't need to specify that the cities and states are Indian. 120.21.70.156 (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Looks like someone took care of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

Aviraj20210 (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC) iwant to review it

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Controversies

@Spike 'em: Hi, Its ok, you can undo edits but your removing solidly sourced edits, its not right. You should raise your disagreement on this talk page. If your think all these issues are old and no need to be mentioned, then you should think again. I will not revert your edit now, to obey rules, happy editing.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but your additions have appalling spelling and grammar. Spike 'em (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2022

The Indian Premier League's mini-auction is all set to open on December 23 in Kochi with nearly 1,000 players up for grabs at the mini-auction. The IPL mini 2023 will see 714 Indian and 277 overseas players for the franchises in the T20 league to pick from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.112.59 (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)  Not done, Its not clear what changes you want in the article. Write in "X to Y".

Controversies involving the Indian Premier League

The discussion is taking place at IPL controversies article that it should be merged in IPL article, you can vote your opinion there and anathor discussion about renaming that article also taking place you can vote about that on its talk page.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2023

Have to update the broadcasting channel of Sri Lanka 2402:4000:2081:1A6B:ED65:1899:A510:794F (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

There is a broken link that cited the rules of IPL in (48). I want to change that broken link and want to add the correct link for that statement. SporteWave123 (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Where is this broken link exactly? Actualcpscm (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There is wrong line in lead, need to discuss

The 3rd line say, teams are based in 7 cities and 3 states, but actually all the teams are based in 10 cities. The owners own the franchise rights in auction and then names the teams.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation is correct. This seems to have been discussed previously. I have gone ahead and edited the sentence. Maduant (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Pls add 2023 ipl season in seasons infobox Thank you 188.236.144.212 (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done season '23 is not finished yet, we only add concluded seasons in that box. If you want any changes, tell here with refrences. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Financial –brand value table...

should be removed? It don't have any citation, we can verify info contain in it?Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

change Duff and Phelps to Kroll, LLC

7th line of the Ipl wikipedia page it is shown that The brand value of the IPL in 2019 was ₹47,500 crore (US$6.2 billion), according to Duff & Phelps. Duff and Phelps is now Kroll, LLC JCWikipedian (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC) @JCWikipedian: Please provide Refrence for this.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late reply, but even the wikipedia page itself about duff and phelps is changed to kroll llc what other proof do you ask for? JCWikipedian (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023 (2)

The cited (48) is broken. Also the rules of this year IPL is changed. Please change that Link by adding another line ie. "For the 2023 season, the Indian Premier League (IPL) has announced major changes to its rules. One of the most important changes is the opportunity for teams to submit their final Playing XIs after the coin toss." SporteWave123 (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)  Done @SporteWave123:, Hi, First of all stop adding your website's links, your now under scanner. WP is not the place for promotion. Disclose your association with Sportewave.com on your Userpage.

References

Broadcasting

Broadcasting section have very old information, awaful grammar. It should be ce and its table have mis-information many places. Such as in S. Africa Super sports is airing 2023 IPL not Viacom18 Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Gut feeling is to cut the table entirely and replace it with the two sentences that are referenced from it. I'm not sure that this whole section shouldn't be dealt with in the season articles - doesn't this just need one or two paragraphs in it's entirety saying, essentially, "lots of people watch it on television and it's also on the radio and on the internets"? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed some uncited rows from the table, plus remv untrue data. The above sections of the table have largely outdated/historical info abt Broadcasting. Its looking like a " history section". It should be cut and selectively merge into History section. Triva info should be removed. I remember amid WPL editing you said that these broadcasting info table should be in 'season' article. This article entirely should be ce and clean-up. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edits have been removing and doubting the inclusion of content that establishes the popularity and prominence of the IPL in the media landscape. This kind of detail is present on articles of other major sports leagues. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

WP policy : Uncited content can be removed, if the table or lines don't have reliable Citation then anyone can challenge it or remove it. WP is not a place to promote leauge. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of Good or Featured Articles which cover media coverage successfully please? I found Premier League, which does it in almost all prose, but I wonder if there are other similar quality articles which do it as well using different methods? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I think La Liga have table about international broadcasters. I read a article specially written about its covarage/ int streamers. And most of the major soccer leauge article may have 'Brodcasting' info. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2023

change the 10 team to 12 as it has been changed 84.71.91.6 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, this request is just wrong: there are 10 active teams in the current season. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger

There was a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies involving the Indian Premier League to merge content from Indian Premier League controversies to this article. Would someone be willing to perform a selective merge as agreed there, bearing in mind that WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCRIME violations should not be merged? I don't want to do it, as I'm WP:INVOLVED (and my personal preference was just to delete all the content, so I don't believe I am objective enough to perform the merge). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

Subject: Edit Request - Please change "Most Successful Team" in Infobox from "Mumbai Indians Chennai Super Kings (5 titles each)" to "Chennai Super Kings (5 titles, 10 finals)" in the Wikipedia Page of Indian Premier League.

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request a modification to the Indian Premier League (IPL) page's infobox, specifically in the section denoting the "Most Successful Team." I believe that the current inclusion of both "Chennai Super Kings" (CSK) and "Mumbai Indians" (MI) as the most successful teams should be revised to accurately reflect the exceptional achievements of Chennai Super Kings. Therefore, I propose listing "Chennai Super Kings" as the sole "Most Successful Team" based on the following reasons:

Title Wins and Final Appearances: Both CSK and MI have secured the IPL title on five occasions, signifying their dominance in the league. However, CSK has achieved this feat with a remarkable consistency, demonstrated by their ten appearances in the final, while MI has reached the final stage six times. CSK's greater number of final appearances showcases their ability to consistently perform at the highest level, cementing their status as the most successful team in the IPL.

Overall Win Percentage: Additionally, CSK's overall win percentage stands higher than MI's, further solidifying their claim to be the most successful team. Considering the cumulative number of matches played by both teams, CSK has maintained a superior win percentage throughout their IPL journey. This statistical measure underscores CSK's sustained excellence and reinforces their position as the leading team in terms of success.

Given these compelling reasons, I kindly request the Wikipedia editors to reconsider the current representation and modify the infobox to list "Chennai Super Kings" as the sole "Most Successful Team" in the Indian Premier League page. This revision accurately reflects CSK's exceptional performances, their significant title wins, and their higher number of final appearances compared to Mumbai Indians.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and thank you in advance for considering this edit request. Please do not hesitate to reach out if any further information or clarification is needed to support this request.

Sincerely, 104.162.76.254 (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, there's no need to get ChatGPT to write an email for an edit request, simply indicate what you want to change using the format "Please change x to y" ARandomName123 (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Please change "Most Successful Team" in Infobox from "Mumbai Indians Chennai Super Kings (5 titles each)" to "Chennai Super Kings (5 titles, 10 finals)"

Tournament results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Premier_League_seasons_and_results (CSK - 5 titles, 10 finals and MI - 5 titles, 6 finals)

Win percentage of each team: https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/trophy/team-results-summary/indian-premier-league-117 ( CSK - 58.96%, MI - 56.68%) 104.162.76.254 (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. Lightoil (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Please change "Most Successful" in Infobox from "Chennai Super Kings (5 titles), Mumbai Indians (5 titles)" to "Chennai Super Kings (5 titles, 10 finals)"

Tournament results: https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/trophy/team-series-results/indian-premier-league-117 (CSK - 5 titles, 10 finals and MI - 5 titles, 6 finals)

Win percentage of each team: https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/trophy/team-results-summary/indian-premier-league-117 ( CSK - 58.96%, MI - 56.68%) 104.162.76.254 (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Most successful statistics are based on how many titles have been won, not how many matches have reached the finals, so I don't see any need for this change. DreamRimmer (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This change request contradicts WP:NPOV since it presents opinions as facts and favours one party over the other. This seems to be one of those change requests where no consensus can be reached and hence we must revert back to not making the edit as per wiki policy

Chennai is pretty good though. AkIonSight (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2023

Change {{Sports Leagues of India}} to {{Sports leagues of India}} to fix a broken transclusion. Alpha514 (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Ban on RR and CSK

The controversies section say, both these teams was banned due to propriter & team principal was indulge in betting but it looks half reason. One line say- they was doing fixing. Editors should clear that, these teams was banned for betting or match fixing. Tesla car owner (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

"List of 2025 Indian Premier League personnel changes" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of 2025 Indian Premier League personnel changes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18 § List of 2025 Indian Premier League personnel changes until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2024

requesting straight-forward changes like grammar, spelling, formatting Dishaa5678 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2024

2409:4056:DCC:846D:50BE:C2AA:A8A:376 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

New Highest Team Total 2024 SRH

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024

Please change the current franchise and the next franchise as the 2024 franchise is going on and it's written that the 2023 franchise is going on.

Thank you. EditingEditor11 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blanked the next parament and set current parameter to 2024 in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi Protected Edit Request - Correction of Link: List of broadcasters

List of Broadcasters:

Current:

Pakistan | Tapmad APP | https://www.tapmad.com/watch/watch-ipl-2024-live-free/110751 | 2024

Changes:

Pakistan | Tapmad APP | https://www.tapmad.com/watch/indian-premier-league-ad-free/010741 | 2024

Details:

As tapmad is live streaming IPL 2024 ad-free paid in Pakistan, they have closed there free live streaming a long time ago Ahsan Muhammad 2291 (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

On 29-4-2024 on the channel of star sports1 have show wrong score table

Have showh wrong score table. 223.233.87.206 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)