Talk:2026 Men's T20 World Cup qualification

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

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)

I was thinking of adding a statistics section with all the records of players (most runs & wickets etc.) across all the regional qualifiers. just like in the 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification page, what do you guys think? @Bs1jac, @Vestrian24Bio, @Goodknowme, @PEditorS10, @Mathew Marco, @Pkr206 Cric editor (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cric editor I don't think its necessary as its hard to compare one regional event to another (though the same could be said for FIFA), but I wouldn't be against it. Might be difficult to adequately reference, as I am not aware of anywhere that has combined stats, and Wiki isn't generally for primary research. Bs1jac (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, I overlooked the non-uniformity in each regional tournaments. I was gonna use the statsguru on ESPNcricinfo for these btw. Cric editor (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The coverage of Qualifier is less than the main event. And, basically in Qualifier statistics, record of player may not available due to less coverage. I didn't oppose the proposal. Goodknowme (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

There's no direct source as such that I'm aware of, so it would be a possible WP:OR otherwise. Vestrian24Bio 09:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I found out a way to get these stats applying filters on the ESPNcricinfo statsguru. Cric editor (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Post a link here... Vestrian24Bio 16:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Most runs, Most wickets Cric editor (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Great finding, we can add them. Vestrian24Bio 08:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

👍 Mathew D'Marco (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering if it is necessary to have so many contrasting colours in the map or to just follow what other sports do, by having just 4-color format, which even follows MOS:COLOR. Making it easier for readers, what say @Vestrian24Bio, @Spike 'em, @WikiEditPS, @Bs1jac, @Godknowme1. Cric editor (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cric editor Yes, I feel it could just be qualified (potentially split between automatic and through qualifiers), failed to qualify, and didn't enter. Bs1jac (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Agree, the blue can be for qualified automatically, green for qualifiers, gold for the failed, black for the withdrawn (in this case Bangladesh if officially replaced). Do we need to highlight suspended teams tho? Cric editor (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Agree. I think grey should be all teams who did not enter (including those suspended from the ICC). The countries in black are wrong anyway; Russia, Cuba and Morocco are not suspended, they are no longer ICC members so should be grey like other non-members. Zambia were suspended at the time of the qualifiers, but I still don't think they need to be highlighted; they were not involved so should also be grey. Bs1jac (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I will be changing them shortly. Retaining black for just the withdrawn team. Cric editor (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I would consider going further and changing the yellow label to simply "Failed to qualify" Bs1jac (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)