Talk:2018 Cricket World Cup Qualifier

Sources for inability to qualify
Does anyone have any sources which detail which teams are affected by these qualifiers? Following the 2017 ICC Champions Trophy there is a huge gap in the rankings between New Zealand in 5th with 111 points and Pakistan in 6th with 95. The best I can find is this article on ESPNcricinfo which say Pak are close to qualifying. However, it doesn't mention what needs to happen for them to either qualify directly or to fall into the play-off positions nor how other teams are affected. From what I can see, neither Pak nor Bangladesh have any ODIs before 30 Sept, so there is no way Bang can overtake Pak, meaning Pak are guaranteed to avoid the play-offs. Sri Lanka have 10 games left and WI 11 to move up the rankings, which is why I've made recent edits. I am aware that this is all WP:OR but is at least more accurate OR than what was here before! Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I found another source which says Pak don't need to go through qualifiers, I've never used cricketworld.com before, but it seems to pass WP:RS to me. Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

As someone keeps moving Pakistan, an explanation:
 * For Pakistan to fail to qualify automatically, 3 teams need to overtake them.
 * Neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh have any games before the cut-off date.
 * Hence Bangladesh cannot move above Pakistan.
 * Only Sri Lanka or West Indies of the teams below them have enough games to overtake them.
 * Therefore the lowest that Pakistan can finish on 30 Sep is 8th
 * The lowest Bangladesh can finish is 9th

It may be that West Indies can no longer overtake Bangladesh due to their recent losses to India, but until someone finds a source quoting that, it will remain OR. There is a reference which quotes the Pakistan captain saying that they don't need to worry about qualification.

However, the most important point here is WP:V, and there is a source linked which says Pak have qualified. Unless you can refute that, then the content stays as is. Spike &#39;em (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Any (IP) editor who likes to revert/change this, they are more than welcome to provide a source. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

According to ICC ratings predictor, which now has all the West Indies games up to end Sept (but not the Sri Lanka v India games), WI cannot now overtake Bangladesh who are therefore guaranteed qualification. 8th / 9th place is now between SL and WI. I hope someone else has more success than me in finding a ref for this! Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Do we take implicit references? This makes no mention of Bangladesh but says last spot is between Sri Lanka and West Indies Spike &#39;em (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting read. Seems a WP:RS, so go with it, unless something else is published to counter it.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The ICC published this today, and you've got to go with the fact that Bangladesh are not mentioned in this, they have indeed qualified.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * More  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

In a further request for sources : I reckon if Netherlands win their next game they qualify for this, and Namibia will get knocked out if they lose today. Anyone come across anything detailing this? Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (in fact the loser of current Namibia v UAE match will get knocked out)Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with both of those, Spike. Kenya can't over-take the Dutch in the table if the Netherlands win, therefore qualifing. Today's loser is def. out too. All I could find is this report after the Sco/Nam game, which details who could be the champ (2nd to last paragraph), but nothing more.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Bonus Points?
What's that about??? 134.159.157.93 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Some previous ODI tournaments have had bonus points for big wins. This one doesn't according to the tables on the ICC website so I've removed the columns. Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Colouring
Why are colours being added to show who has been knocked out/progressed, when Manual of Style/Accessibility states this should not be done?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks pretty rubbish too.Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've not seen any other articles which use such a colour scheme and even if there are, WP:OTHER suggests that this does not make it correct here. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Spike.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea which other articles have this colour scheme, I've not seen any and have no inclination to hunt around for them. It looks rubbish and I'm reverting again. I'd suggest you actually discuss here rather than in edit summaries. Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some articles like 2015 World Cup, 2014 World T20 etc. have this color scheme. 42774 (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, they should be updated to reflect the MOS, too. But as Spike says, I'm not going round WP to try and find them. If I come across them across any normal editing, I update them as I see them.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What's the issue with color? Wikipedia is a freely available source. Who makes Lugnuts its owner? I agree there should be some sort of control over its content but control should be in terms of information and not in terms of presentation. The person who has edited some information is also intelligent enough to source it as soon as a relaible news site is found. But no, Mr Lugnuts would only want source from sites which he likes and would disregard any or everything else.
 * I think the colour makes the article difficult to read. You are no more the owner than Lugnuts is. If something proves to be controversial it should be discussed which seems to have happened here. Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not about sourcing anything, but about the long-standing style guidance at Manual of Style/Accessibility. If you think this is wrong, then feel free to start an RfC to change it.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no point fighting with you. A person with such stubbornness will not change no matter what. You continue doing what you do and I will do what I feel like doing. I live in a free world and no lugnuts can stop me from doing what I want to do and when I want to do.
 * MOS:TEXT states: "Prose text should never be manually colored". I'll forgive the abhorrent spelling for now Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done 2015 World Cup and 2012 & 2014 World T20. Any more can be done as and when someone who can be bothered finds them. Spike &#39;em (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed colors from 2014 Asia cup. 42774 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks 42774. For the record, I probably added the colours, back in the day, because other articles had them and no-one challenged the status quo. Then someone pointed out the MOS:ACCESS/colour guides and I stopped doing it (y'know, learning a new way of how things work on WP). Hardly "stubbornness".  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not only stubborn but are living in denial. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well at least three editors disagree with your changes. Looks like you're the one in denial.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My edits of Super six fixures were reverted, even I have provided source for that. 42774 (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Netherlands
Is there any article which mentions Netherlands having permanent ODI status? The reason I ask is because in final standings it shows that Netherlands have not qualified for the WC but has nothing to do with its status beyond 2022. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * might be this one http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21697644/winning-wcl-was-awesome-experience-roelof-van-der-merwe and last paragraph in http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22107414/odi-status-denied-some-world-cup-qualifier-games 42774 (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But it only says they have status till 2022. Not sure how they are permanent ODI team now as indicated in the final standings table. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC) So shoudln't the final standings table for Netherlands be in same category as Nepal, UAE and (when included) Scotland?
 * I have for now based on these articles edited the table. If someone finds something which shows otherwise please change it. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - What if the key is changed from Gained to Have? --Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * this article ( http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22107414/odi-status-denied-some-world-cup-qualifier-games ) clearly says that After the tournament is concluded, Netherlands plus the three highest-finishing Associate sides will be granted ODI status until 2022.  42774 (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This from the ICC in December states "The Netherlands have won the ICC World Cricket League Championship and claimed the 13th ODI League position", ergo to be in the ODI League, they must have ODI status, which happened before the tournament started. They could not lose ODI status in this tournament, like PNG and HK.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So if the key is changed from Gained ODI status till 2022 to Have ODI status till 2022 won't that change Netherlands status? Even Scotland & UAE have kept there status and in such case ony Nepal gained it. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the colouring yesterday as I thought the table implied that the teams concerned gained odi status because of this tournament. As I suspect your links show, Netherlands gained this already by winning the 2015-17 world cricket league. Are we going to colour in whichever of Afghanistan / Ireland / Zimbabwe fail to qualify too? Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why i had initially put in the key as Full emembers that did not qualify to separate out whichever of Afghanistan / Ireland / Zimbabwe fail to qualify. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It can be marked with other associate nations as all having status till 2022, but with Notes. 42774 (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe the solution is simply not to note it. Unless the team has been relegated or gained ODI status, then the status quo would be that all the other teams remain as ODI status. Only the ICC can explain the esoteric rationale of the Netherlands not having ODI status in this tournament, despite gaining it beforehand!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At least, it should differentiate teams with Permanent status and Temporary Status 42774 (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with your suggestion. Going by that logic for Scotland and the UAE no need to color them but color for Nepal who have gained the status. I won't be changing the color for Scotland and the UAE but would request you to please do it since you can put in correct links on such issues. Again I have no intention of arguing over it but just wanted a clarity on how to represent such issues. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of those teams had their status directly affected by this tournament, so I would say that the colouring is appropriate for them (though the exact wording may need to be changed) Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hope it is ok with all the editors. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

How about this one, as other Qualifier tournament, having three columns (Poisiton, Team, Status ) 42774 (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I've moved the table into its own template so minor changes to it don't get lost in the other edits, and as it's used in multiple places.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with the table Just to bring to eveyone's notice that Shai Hope has crossed 1000 ODI runs and so far other than stats link I am unable to find any other link so I ahven't added to the final. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cricket World Cup which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)