Talk:Twenty20 International

Temporary T20I status

Spike 'em I found that you removed Nepal's entry from previous list as they have currently having T20I status, but they have previously having T20I status and then failed to retain. In this new edit, we can't know for which duration they had T20I status. H1007 (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I did wonder if I should leave it in, I was weighing up whether it was more confusing having them in both lists or not mentioning their previous T20I stint. I think the choices are:

1. Mention their previous stint on the same line as current status
2. Use a footnote to do the same
3. reword the introduction to the list of previous teams to mention that it may include teams who have returned to T20I status.
4. Don't mention it at all!

I'm looking at the similar section on the ODI page. Whilst on the subject, I think the dates need amending to be the dates the status was earned / taken away, rather than the span of actual match dates. Spike 'em (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As Ireland & Afghanistan are also shown with their temporary status Nepal can be added in both lists, or We can reword.

yes, dates the status was earned / taken away is better option.

I have put suggestion of table based list in ODI Talk page , so pl look it once. H1007 (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Tabular form or Indexed

I had created the status into tabular forms as this was suggested into on the talk page of ODIs. Similar ideas about confusing dates were had been suggested above and therefore I added the tournaments through which qualification was decided. J man708 (talk undid the tabular back to old indexed suggesting that the previous status gave more clarity. After reading his suggestion, I felt that the previous "Temporary Status" table was too big but I reverted to tabular format while dividing it into 2 tables for better clarity with the 2nd one being hidden. J man708 (talk still felt that the indexed format was better and undid the tabular back to old indexed one. I still feel that the tabular is better and it also contains more information than just dates. Would like to know what other user's prefer between the two (if any). Shubham389 (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, the table is WAAAAAY too complex. This way is not only simpler, it's also shorter and more concise. - J man708 (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I assume it relates to changes like this? That is way too esoteric, even for a page on WP! And it's a moot point about the "Temporary Status" misnomer, as all teams now have T20I status. This section simply needs to be made into a table, with the team and date of the first T20I, with a few footnotes. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't even see an issue with how it is now, tbh. But should it need to be changed to a table (which again I don't think it does), then we really don't need THAT table. The term "clusterfuck" comes to mind... - J man708 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - if it has to be a table then keep it simple and please don't try and use colour alone to indicate meaning. That opens a whole pile of usability and accessibility issues. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

T20I team lists

I feel that the list of teams here should be a single list/table with each team in order of when they played their first T20I, regardless of whether, at the time, they had 'permanent' status (due to being a full member), temporary status, special status, or permanent since 2019 status. Examples being Kenya, Scotland, UAE etc... I don't care when they played their first match after 1 Jan 2019, rather it is interesting to see when they first played, which would put them much higher up the list than at present. Given that all teams now have 'permanent status' (so long as they remain full/associate members), I believe that a single list would be cleaner and easier to understand. The supporting paragraph can explain the history of teams getting T20I status, i.e. full members, temporary status, and the 2019 change.

Also, a much smaller point, but if two teams debut at the same time, would it be better to list alphabetically rather than by 'who batted first' which seems somewhat unusual in my opinion (batting isn't superior to bowling, and a team doesn't need to bat in order to debut)? Bs1jac (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Both points sound sensible to me (I may need to recheck what I've said above to check I'm not contradicting myself). Spike 'em (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The first point really bugs me. The second point less so. Any complaints if I draft up an intro paragraph summarising the history of status (permanent, temporary, etc)? Bs1jac (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that while it’s all well and good for the T20I article, this doesn’t extend to the ODI article, as we would see it stating that Canada had been playing cricket prior to say South Africa. Yes, they did play a few ODI matches, but these were as stated before prior to ODI status being granted to them. Whilst I see your point of view that it works chronologically, it seems a little short-sighted that it doesn’t work for the ODI article. - J man708 (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

ODIs are a separate issue. The timeframe is much shorter for T20I history for one. Conversely it otherwise looks very weird to have the UAE or Scotland listed way down the list when they had in fact played 10 years before the teams debuting in 2019, and played fairly consistently through that time. There are certainly no teams who played T20I cricket without having the status outside of a specific tournament ("special status"). Having a 'Permanent status' section when in fact all teams have permanent status seems redundant also. Bs1jac (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

ODIs are definitely the same issue. They’re a sister article of this one. What’s good for one article needs to work for the other.

We can’t state that the countries had permanent status prior to 2019, as they didn’t. The status given to countries like Kenya was purely temporary. Again, as I said earlier, your proposal might be all well and good for T20I history, but it doesn’t really work for the ODI page. It’s important that we show consistency amongst these pages. You stated that it “looks weird” that Scotland and the UAE are listed down the list (which is very WP:IDONTLIKEIT), but your proposal would literally create the same issues on the ODI article by showing East Africa and Canada ahead of Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. - J man708 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The rules are different for ODIs and T20Is, so I have no problem if the pages look slightly different. Nowhere does it state a team had permanent status before they did, and I also think that this list makes a lot more sense than what was here before. Spike 'em (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The rules might be different of the two, but they’re both sports, both cricket, both internationals, both short form types of limited overs games. They’re literally as close as possible. They both follow the same styling template overall which is also featured on the test cricket article.

Why does it come across as an issue to you that a country such as Kenya is so low on the list, but you wouldn’t care that Canada would be placed so high on the ODI list?

EDIT - I thought the above response was from Bs1jac and not from Spike. - J man708 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd leave the ODI article as it is, as there are still different statuses. I've never mentioned any specific teams, but do think it is erroneous to have all the existing T20I teams who had continuing international status way down the list. Spike 'em (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

That’s the shit thing, Spike. What works for one doesn’t work for the other. I’m not against change for any of the articles, but I do insist that whatever changes are made to this article also be able to be utilised for the ODI (and Test) articles. As a middle ground, could we maybe agree that a table is better to show here, or we could even create a new article to show the ridiculously large list of growing T20I nations? I’d have better compromise ideas, but it’s 2:30am here on Monday morning. Brain no work gooderer at night. - J man708 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate there is an element of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I disagree that the pages you mention need to be consistent in this sense. Look at the Women's Twenty20 article which is very different again. As Spike mentioned, ODIs still have multiple statuses so I wouldn't consider applying the same rule there. What works there, in my opinion at least, does not work here anymore. My main beef is why the need to show the first time a team played after an arbitrary date of 1 Jan 2019, given that the likes of Scotland and the UAE for example have played consistently for a number of years beforehand (yes temp status, but essentially in Scotland's case continuous). Is anyone interested in when Ireland first played a T20I after gaining Full Member status, rather than when they played their first T20I? I do feel pretty strongly on this, but at the end of the day, if I can't convince you it's no problem Bs1jac (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In addition, in the current format shouldn't the old 'permanent status' teams also be listed in the 'teams that have played after 2019' list (as they have done so, like other teams who had played before also)? I appreciate that's not the option, but perhaps have one main list as I had done, then a separate list beneath this listing the outdated permanent list and temporary lists? That might get too lengthy though. Also in the temporary status list, shouldn't the end dates be when they lost status, not when they last played a match... e.g. Scotland never lost status; they still held it at the end of 2018 (would have held it until the 2019 t20 qualifier, and in fact probably until the next 50 over world cup qualifier). Bs1jac (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I definitely see your point, but I disagree with the stance you have. Either way, I reckon we could make a pretty good compromise by changing the list into a table, which should hopefully give us a column/row where we can add in the disambiguating info? - J man708 (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

While I still strongly stand by my suggestions, I do agree a compromise is perfectly possible and glad we are having a sensible discussion. A sortable table in which columns include, say, first ever t20i date (and link to series), and if you want it the first t20i after gaining 'permanent' status - which would be the same for some teams - might indeed work. Bs1jac (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

There have been tables (but separate ones) in the past, agree that one would probably make sense either here or at List of teams who have played T20 International cricket (name TBD) with columns for 1st T20I, date of accession to Full status, possibly first game after that, and then notes where teams like Ireland and Scotland could have some more details of previous temp status mentioned. Spike 'em (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

All this civility! I’m not used to it! Yeah, I reckon your idea sounds good. Spike, your comment makes me ask if this list/table is too long to show in its current form on here? Perhaps we could split it into two rows? Again, just ideas. - J man708 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with both Spike and J man708. Perhaps the list/table should be on its own article linked from here. It is only going to get bigger! Malaysia and Thailand this month during a triangular series, Singapore in July during the Asia qualifier, Samoa in July during the Pacific Games, also Finland in July, Cayman Islands in August during the Americas qualifier, then there are the South American Championships in October (I have no details of this but the Brazilian association contacted me to let me know it is happening (!)... Bs1jac (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Giving out T20I status to anyone was such a near-sighted move that clearly doesn’t have Wikipedia in mind! Honestly, it’s one thing having teams like Canada and Uganda get it, but Thailand and Brazil?... - J man708 (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This has all gone a bit quiet, I'll see if I can create a trial table, which checking into the ODI article, I started doing there too in 2018 (on the talk page) but it never got promoted. Maybe I'll try both at the same time. Spike 'em (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, boss. - J man708 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Haha, yes as strongly as I feel about the current format being poor (who really cares when a team played their first T20I after 1 January 2019, or their first T20I as a full member, as opposed to when they played their first ever T20I?), I tried to - in my opinion - significantly improve it but was reverted so kind of gave up and left it to the community! Bs1jac (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Where/how can I find franchise cricket stats?

Can someone explain of provide a link on franchise cricket stats for players? --UserHerName (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Twenty20 International → Twenty20 international – Sources don't usually capitalize "International" in this. Dicklyon (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note – n-gram stats show mostly lowercase in "Twenty20 international". Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the ICC website. The thing is, as explained in the article, from 2005 to 2018, T20Is did not cover all international T20 matches - only those between top teams. Hence, "Twenty20 International" is a technical term. StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, this is analogous to One Day International where the "I" is always capitalised (per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Style advice). StAnselm (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Per WP:MOS; all formats of the international game are capitalised: Test, ODI, T20I. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not finding anything about that when I search WP:MOS. What am I missing? Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I meant WP:MOS:CAPS! StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I still don't find what you're referring to. Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's a completely unclear comment. What does MOS:CAPS say that supports the "Keep"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose International is a specific designation that is part of the title, it's a Twenty20 International match. Same as how it's a One Day International match. Not sure what data that graph is picking up, is it just from random hits on Google Books? And all international T20 matches are now official Internationals, which wasn't the case until 2018, so claiming something based on outdated data with no explanation of how the data graph is finding its data is an adequate justification for a change. All proper reliable sources use International not international, and so that is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. And as per MOS:CAPS, In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. International is part of the proper name. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Twenty20 International is the name of the format of fixtures. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Question – If I understand correctly, y'all are saying that the many uses of "Twenty20 international" in books are not referring to the same thing as "Twenty20 International" capped. Please help me understand this, perhaps with examples of where the lowercase version doesn't refer to the topic of this article. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think there may be a sort of a WP:NAMECHANGES suggestion in the above comments for capitalization in post-2018 references. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.