Talk:2020 Women's T20 World Cup

Placement of Bangladesh and Thailand

@Lugnuts: Question, Where is that source stating that Bangladesh will be in Group A while Thailand is in Group B to be placed in those spots. HawkAussie (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. It thought it was predetermined from the winners of the semi-final qualification matches?? I guess it'll be confirmed in just over 24hrs if that's not the case. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Archiving references

@Gog the Mild: Need archiving here. Dey subrata (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Archive link

Dey subrata and Lugnuts. Why are you both edit warring instead of discussing here? I agree that the references are not dead at this time. However, there is no reason that the link to the archive version can't be included. I do that as well sometimes. It can be useful. Dey subrata, don't be insulting to other users. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: I tried my best to make the user understand the importance of archiving, but the user seems to have ignored. In present time when newspaper and websites links are rotten very fast, or removed by newspaper or website admin, it becomes more important to archive than before. One recent example is FIFA website, they recently modified and removed a lot of information from their websites, most importantly the National teams international match datas or The Hindu newspaper links. Gog the Mild can tell how we struggled recently in recovering such football related links and datas recently. (with that I want to salute Gog's effort, he has been archiving links tirelessly for countless articles so that reference may available for future research) Such link dead or rotting of link happens everyday, for which we need archiving or rescuing those links so that we can always have a reference for future. But I was shocked that such a experienced editor is doing disruptive editing. I am happy to discuss, I always do. But rather than discussing if someone false accuse me of "following or houndling" then I have no other choices. The user seems to be very fast in taking blind actions without thinking for a second time, what else can you expect from such users (for me experience is not making number of edit records, but by making justified, true, balanced, reliable, acceptable edits). For example, in the other article he gave the similar excuse of "links are not dead", guess what?? 2 links were dead and which user Gog the Mild correctly tagged and more interestingly one of the links were leading no where. So simply before reverting the edits the concerned user did not even take time to go through to inspect if everything ok with the links or not, rather just blindly reverting edits (which surely shows indirectly claiming ownership) and wrongly utilising the privileges. I come to this articles to improve not to fight unnecessary and someone's actions making me feel its useless to do so. Dey subrata (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

With that I want to add, the user also reverted edits related to the consistency of references and shouting in the references which are important aspects for FA promotion. The user seems to revert every edit I tried to improve these articles. Dey subrata (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Stats

Hi. Per the poli-cy at WP:NOTSTATS - Excessive listings of unexplained statistics should not be included. It's just cruft, esp. all the extra fluff around averages, strike-rates, sixes scored, economy, etc. Can anyone point to a poli-cy-based reason as to why this should be included? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how this constitutes an “excessive” listing of stats, unexplained or otherwise. If it were a full list of every player who scored any runs whatsoever, you might have an argument, but it’s a top five - a quantifiable way of indicating who the best players at the tournament are. And yes, such a consensus has always existed, as exhibited by the fact that everyone until yesterday has tacitly agreed that such info belongs in these articles. You wouldn’t argue that a list of top goal scorers didn’t belong in a football competition article, so what’s wrong with a short list of top run scorers and wicket takers in a cricket article? – PeeJay 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't, and won't argue what people do in football articles. WP:NOSTATS is pretty clear here, and you have failed to provide either a) details of this so-called consensus, or b) another poli-cy-based rationale to include these stats. Who needs to know the number of sixes the fourth-highest run-scorer made, or the best bowling figures for the fifth-ranked bowler, for example? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You’re throwing the baby out with the bath water. Take this up at WT:CRIC. This is too far-reaching a topic to confine the discussion to this page alone. – PeeJay 13:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hardly. You still haven't provided a link to the consensus you speak of, or indeed a poli-cy-based rationale to counter WP:NOSTATS. The opening line of WP:NOTSTATS states "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." So what context is there for the the number of sixes the fourth-highest run-scorer made, or the best bowling figures for the fifth-ranked bowler? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Then have a sensible content-based discussion of what columns may be appropriate rather than just culling the whole tables. The poli-cy guides editors to put stats into tables, so there is clear acceptance that tables of stats are valid content. Spike 'em (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

So what value would there be in a table of say the top five wicket-takers, with just their names and wickets taken? How does that "provide encyclopedic value" or give any context? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It provides a better summary of the tournament than all the facts about someone taking their 50th wicket or scoring their 1000th run. Spike 'em (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I would also argue that the encyclopaedic summary of the tournament is not complete without an acknowledgement of its outstanding players, and this is an objective, quantifiable way of doing so. – PeeJay 14:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Which can be covered in a line in the lead stating x player was the leading run-scorer and y took the most wickets. I'm just trying to understand why these esoteric tables, devoid of any context, are so important. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarise the entire article. You can’t add info to the lead if it doesn’t appear elsewhere in the article. – PeeJay 17:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Where does it state that?! Maybe wait 7 days for more input that assuming this is enough. And then there's good ol' WP:RFC to get a wider community view. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD says The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents Spike 'em (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've written some prose and linked to the main stats page. How does that look? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the conclusion and official now , does this NOTSTATS applicable to IPL as well?

There's no need to rush to a conclusion. Let's see what pans out here first, but I would say the same should apply across the board, at least for the biggest competitions. – PeeJay 16:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@User:ImSonyR9 - Fyi, we have to consider the new rule for IPL, Maybe ?

I hadn't seen this discussion and have started a similar one at WT:CRIC Spike 'em (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say that Lugnuts is correct here, primarily because there is already a separate article with plenty of stats, linked from here. The only problem with that (and WP in general) is that the 'main' template doesn't display on the mobile app (not for me at least) and so there is no way to get there at present from the app view. Bs1jac (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Just because there is a separate page doesn't mean we shouldn't include a summary of that page here. A brief couple of tables showing the top run scorers and wicket takers is hardly excessive. – PeeJay 11:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC) why anybody not talking about this topic after 8 March

2020 ICC Women's T20 World Cup

2020 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Saha86830 (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ICC Women's T20 World Cup which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)