Talk:2026 ICC Men's T20 World Cup qualification

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)