Talk:2026 Men's T20 World Cup qualification

‹ The template below (WikiProject Cricket) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

Cricket Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Cricket To-do list:

Article assessment

Check Category:Unassessed cricket articles for class and Category:Unknown-importance cricket articles for importance: see Assessment Department for details

Verifiability

Update fair and unfair play, fast bowling, first-class cricket, googly, innings, leg break, limited overs cricket, not out, Pakistan Cricket Board, spin bowling, underarm bowling, wicket, and other fundamental articles classified by the WikiProject as high-importance so that they meet WP:Verifiability policy standards

Cleanup

There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)

Infoboxes

Add infoboxes to the player articles found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes

Cricket people

Create articles about 19th century players who are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/19th century players
Create biographies about Bangladeshi players from the task force redlink list
Check the listing of key bios at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Key biographies and improve these to at least B-class.
Create batting/bowling graphs for cricketers who have excelled in international cricket.
Create articles for redlinks present here and here

Cricket teams & countries

Domestic cricket coverage is needed for Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe;
Create articles from redlinks and improve existing articles in List of current first-class cricket teams; National cricket teams; Under-19 national cricket teams
Create articles about cricket in these missing countries
Create or expand articles on international tours from items in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles
Create a link as such on Template:Cr-Aus/doc for Cricket Australia XI

Images

Add pictures (and remove template from address requests) in these Category:Wikipedia requested images of cricket people
Add pictures for grounds missing photos from here

On this day in cricket

Expand the anniversary coverage for Portal:Cricket at Portal:Cricket/Anniversaries

Umpires

Expand ICC International umpire panel; ICC Elite referee panel; ICC Associates and Affiliates umpire panel

Women

Expand Women's cricket, Women's Test cricket and articles about women's cricket generally especially biographies and tours

Update

A number of lists need to be updated, can be found in Template:International cricketers and Template:National cricket captains
Regularly updating cricketers' career stats.

Other

Export all cricket terms present in List of cricket terms to Wiktionary

Qualified teams table

Should the qualified teams table be like option 1 or option 2

I'll go with the option 1 because, in the other option (also the current one) lists the teams first and the common stuff (like means of qualification, date, venue) and then has the teams' statistics. Which clearly has MOS:ACCESS, MOS:DTAB problems.

What do others think about it - @Bs1jac, Kumarpramit, Pkr206, Goodknowme, PEditorS10, Ankurc.17, MNWiki845, and WikiEditPS:. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer option 1 as well. Bs1jac (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will go with option 1 Goodknowme (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think option 2 is better, because here qualified teams are priority not means of qualification, date or venues, in previous edition's qualification page teams are written first and Wikipedia readers also come here to know the qualified teams first then other information. WikiEditPS ^(TALK) 11:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the problems that @Vestrian24Bio mentioned, we can solve them by making table like this 2022 FIFA WC Qualified teams. WikiEditPS ^(TALK) 11:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer option 2 as I believe that the preference should be of the qualified teams and not the means of how they have qualified. So, the teams should be in the first column. PEditorS10 (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will prefer option 2 Kumarpramit (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer option 2 since Teams qualified should be given preference to method of qualification. Ankurc.17 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have revamped the table now as per @WikiEditPS's suggestion. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New option 3 - what's the thought...

@Ankurc.17 @Bs1jac @Godknowme1 @Goodknowme @Kumarpramit @PEditorS10 @Pkr206 @WikiEditPS Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 is better than other two. That's my opinion. Thank you @Vestrian24Bio. Goodknowme (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio Overly complex in parts. Dont think it needs the column for consecutive appearances. More importanly, it really doesnt need to distinguish between which super 8 group they were in (or semi finalists etc) in 2024. Simply state that they qualified through their performance at the 2024 tournament. Bs1jac (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with this. PEditorS10 (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreed with this. Pkr206 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, both me and Bsjac have suggested option 1 in the first place. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still going with option 2 because option 3 is way too over-detailed and it’s too complicated. Pkr206 (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will still prefer Option 2... Option 3 is over detailed. Kumarpramit (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of the option 3 table. I think it is way too over-detailed than it should be. I still prefer option 2, or even the way the table is currently present. PEditorS10 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too complicated to follow... Ankurc.17 (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Option 3 is better, but that venues section with a long rowspan makes difficult to access further written information about each team, we can remove Venues section as it is not so necessary, then it will surely become less complicated. WikiEditPS ^(TALK) 16:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]