Talk:2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup

Name of the tournament
Can we rename this page to "2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup"? It's in the logo and has been consistently referred to as such by the ICC. Clcpang (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * All the previous men's tournaments have the same naming standard, for example 2016 ICC World Twenty20. This is not just in cricket, but other sports on WP, such as 2018 FIFA World Cup and 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The 2016 tournament was called 2016 ICC World Twenty20 but this tournament is called the 2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup? Why the sudden rush to NOT call the tournament by its actual name? 42.62.207.8 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with 42.62.207.8. The difference is the tournament's official name is actually 2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, unlike the FIFA World Cup. In a similar vein, when the 2017 FIVB Volleyball World League changes its name to 2018 FIVB Volleyball Men's Nations League, the "Men's" was added to the title and that article's title reflected as such. At the very least the first sentence of this article should contain the remark "(officially the 2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup)". Clcpang (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why opposing anything which is Official, from now on all ICC tournament will be named seperately as ICC Men's and Women's. This is the first tournament named. The ICC offcial websites is showing it, the logo showing it. I don't see any reason other than patriarchial mind set to oppose a official name like this. Secondly, its more clear that the tournamnet is Men's and the other tournament is Women's. If anyone opposing this, please let me know why do you use ICC Women's T20 Worldcup rather than ICC T20 Worldcup for them also. Dey subrata (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2019

 * 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: Moved. See Talk:ICC_Men's_T20_World_Cup  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

2020 ICC T20 World Cup → 2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup – The 2020 edition of the tournament's name not only changed form ICC World Twenty20 to ICC T20 World Cup but rather it has been distinguished as ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Its now the official name. The citaion added in the article as describe such (ICC offcial website declaration of name change) and the logo that is added in the article also suggest this. So one must use the official not any other. Secondly, it gives more clear picture seperating from Men's and Women's. Dey subrata (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've raised a move request on Talk:ICC T20 World Cup too as these articles should be consistent


 * Support:It would be crazy to have a different name from the logo in the infobox! Jopal22 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the most relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME, which says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources), so you need to show that most sources use the official name not something else. Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say WP:QUALIFIER should be taken into account here i.e. Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Jopal22 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When ICC named it such 1, secondly the citation used in the article also suggest these and all major cricketing websites displays the same. CRICBUZZ, ESPN, CRIC WAVES, then I don't think it brings any kind of confusion or inconsistency, as the main article ICC T20 World Cup is also being moved to rename as ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Dey subrata (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, clearly per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Khestwol (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By your reasoning should we not remove ICC from the name? Jopal22 (talk)
 * No, I think we cannot remove "ICC" from the title for the purpose of WP:Recognizability. It is for the same reason that we use the title FIFA World Cup, not simply "World Cup". Khestwol (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But it would not be simply "World Cup", it would be "T20 World Cup". I would think the use of "ICC" and "Men's" are equal in WP:Recognizability. Jopal22 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In any case, the addition of "Men's" is unnecessary per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Please note that also in FIFA's case, there is a FIFA Women's World Cup, yet we do not use "FIFA Men's World Cup" for the FIFA World Cup. Khestwol (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * † I would suggest during the Women's T20 World Cup, that tournament is likely to meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, therefore there is not a clear and consistent primary, and so we should disambiguate. Also we can give examples of other articles e.g. Men's Hockey World Cup and Women's Hockey World Cup, but think we should not go down a WP:OSE path too much Jopal22 (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt if the Women's T20 World Cup will get as much media attention and coverage in WP:RS. But if it really does, hypothetically, then we can move the article to the new title. Khestwol (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to give you a heads up here, the men's and women's previously took part at the same time. This time the women's is taking place 6 months before the men's, so it is very likely that during the women's tournament the prominence will be higher than the men's Jopal22 (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your logic, "... FIFA's case, there is a FIFA Women's World Cup, yet we do not use "FIFA Men's World Cup" for the FIFA World Cup" Its simple because FIFA's official name of tournamnet is FIFA World Cup. I am talking about official name. Its ICC Men's T20 World Cup, I don't see any logic in your argument. Secondly you said, "I doubt if the Women's T20 World Cup will get as much media attention and coverage in WP:RS. But if it really does, hypothetically, then we can move the article to the new title." That shows the intention and mentality. Someone who started creating these article in the first place is of patriarchal mentality for sure, and same can be seen in your words...We have to start from somewhere to make these article correct for the generation coming when they will ask us, "Men's national team called as National team?" why "Women's national team" are not called simply "National team"? Till date we can't use "Men's" in the tournament name because untill now ICC never ever taken this staep, this is the first time they have taken the step. Its the start. And all the articles of Men's team should be renamed as from now ICC named the tournaments as "Men's tournament". And answer me clearly, why don't you call, ICC Women's T20 Worldcup as ICC T20 Worldcup ?? Dey subrata (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The men's article for the Cricket World Cup is at Cricket World Cup. The women's article is at Women's Cricket World Cup. The (men's) football world cup is at FIFA World Cup, with the women's article at FIFA Women's World Cup. Same for the national men's teams in cricket (England cricket team vs. England women's cricket team) and football (England national football team vs. England women's national football team). Per countless other examples on WP, the men's tournaments and teams omit the word "men's".  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are examples of naming Men's tournament as "Men's", as its official name. For example Men's Hockey World Cup, 2019 FIVB Volleyball Men's Nations League, 2020 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships, NCAA Division I men's swimming and diving championships, these are some other popular sports. More than that USA's national team is named as United States men's national soccer team, its a very "Unique"example. which support the name change argument twice. First its inconsistent with other "(Country) National football team", and also the name use "USA mens national soccer team", which is also inconsistent with other article, but its still here as the official name is that one. So what is official should be put, which all logics indicates such. ICC don't recognize Indian or Australian male team as India cricket team and Australia cricket team, They separately recognise them as India men's cricket team and Australia men's cricket team from women's team. All their records include the word "Men's, like this here, someone made those articles in wrong way in the first place. It should be changed, along with all other national team articles. I can do it without complaining, if there is 100 articles I can do it, no problem, it can be made consistent with all other articles just within half an hour. Dey subrata (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Little bit puzzled after looking at the logo as depicted in the article. However, traditionally we have gone with the header ICC T20 World Cup for men's tournament instead of using ICC Men's T20 World Cup. But take a look at the recent Athletics World Championships which was held in UAE, the name of the tournament was renamed for the first time as 2019 World Athletics Championships instead of using 2019 World Championships in Athletics according to the prescription of the IAAF. If ICC too officially clarify this tournament's naming clearly then we can decide upon it. Abishe (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The recently concluded 2019 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Cup is a good example which is not mentioned above. But I am still not impressed to go for the move until obtaining the consent of other WikiProject Cricket members. Abishe (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: Since the ICC officially now calls it the 'Men's World Cup', so it should be called that as well. Also it might promote sexism by calling the women's tournament as 'women's' and not calling the men's tournament as 'men's'!  Arka   92  19:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Looking at it from a consistence point of view, I do think that it's time for this article to change so that it would be the 2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup instead of what it currently is under WP:OFFICIAL especially when their are links here, here and here to name a few of the references. HawkAussie (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: This is a fresh rebrand from the ICC. It makes no sense to take in half of the rebrand (the World Cup bit) in the title and not the other half. Clcpang (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: as this is a primary topic per WP:PRIMARY. Störm   (talk)  17:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please kindly explain why do you think that it should not be named which is the official name of the tournament and which all sources and websites are showing the same only. Also i want to bring to your notice, by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it suggested that, "...In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful.." And thats why the concensus is here. And for primary topic its been discussed above. † Dey subrata (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: WP:COMMONNAME. Here's a recent example from today: &rArr; Chris0282 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, WP:COMMONNAME you must take in account the major cricketing websites and all match datas and records are kept and ICC websites not newspaper sites : ICC official relaease, ICC Qualifiers, CRICBUZZ,  ESPN Crickinfo, Wisden Cricketers’ Almanack, CRIC WAVES Its also been discussed above, please go through. And secondly WP:COMMONNAME does not work when the official logo says ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Dey subrata (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also major cricket board also says such ICC Men's T20 World Cup: England and Wales cricket board, Cricket Australia, Board of Control for Cricket in India. Thus shows WP:COMMONNAME does not work in this case. Dey subrata (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bogus argument. Here is another article from the same site (BBC) that refers to the women's version as "the T20 World Cup". By your argument we should change the women's one to "World Cup" and the men's one to "Men's World Cup". Tons of articles remove the gender once the context is clear. 58.111.211.23 (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I missed another reason why the article should be named as the official name because, when ICC writes in its releases, ICC T20 World Cup, they do not mean men's tournament, they are refering to both the tournamnet. here is the example for both. But when it refers to Men's tournament they clearly defined it as ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Here for only men's. Similarly, the most famous publication on cricket Wisden Cricketers' Almanack known as "Bible of Cricket" they too have similar display. Here for both when talking about both tournament as ICC T20 World Cup and when specifying male tournamnet they use the term Men's. Here for men's. Dey subrata (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above, it's ambiguous to use the non-sex-specific name for the men's tournament when it frequently means both. Frietjes (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archiving references
Need archiving here. Dey subrata (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (temp)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2021 ICC Men&. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Official Logo uses "INDIA 2021" and not "UAE & OMAN 2021"
Even though the venue has been shifted to UAE & OMAN, the official logo still uses INDIA 2021 in all their brandings. See the latest tweet from the official verified account - https://twitter.com/T20WorldCup/status/1416737249220308998 Also check the official website - https://www.icc-cricket.com/t20-world-cup This logo needs to be used - https://ibb.co/zsFTcFc

14.139.59.140 (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Fixed - thanks for spotting that. Indeed, the ICC use the India logo too.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Qualification / lead
The start of the Qualification section states: As of 31 December 2018, the top nine ranked ICC Full Members, alongside hosts India, qualified directly for the 2021 tournament. This is nonsense, as in Dec 2018 the tournament was due to be held in Australia in 2020, so at that point it was them who qualified as hosts. This statement was in the article at end of 2019, well before the Covid outbreak took hold and well before the tournament rescheduling happened. It ultimately makes no difference, as both India and Aus qualified anyway, but this statement either needs to be removed or edited to match reality. Are there any sources that make clear if there were actually any changes to the qualification process? Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * On related note I also noticed that the lead (and possibly more of the article) actually goes against what the ICC has stated. The lead claims this tournament is the delayed 2020 tournament, but the ICC say that the 2020 tournament was moved to 2022, and the 2021 tournament (always planned for India) was left where it was. Surely this article should reflect that, or do other sources claim that this is actually a rearrangement of the 2020 tournament? Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2021
2402:3A80:1162:24E0:0:0:349A:5BD2 (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Australia was not the host for this tournament 2021
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nitesh003 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As per the section directly above, according to the ICC, this tournament was left alone, and the 2020 version (the Australian-hosted one) was moved to 2022. Unless other sources can be provided to counteract this, then I would support this change. Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021
49.206.121.173 (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Please fix Super 12 Group B Fixtures
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  06:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021 (2)
Change venue of Namibia v Ireland to Sharjah Change venue of Sri Lanka v Netherlands to Sharjah Cricketfan657 (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Sirdog9002 (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just checked this one, and the OP is right, per the media release. - if you spot any further mistakes, please provide a source to WP:V your claim. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021 (3)
Change Venue of 1st Semi Final to Sheikh Zayed Cricket Stadium, Abu Dhabi Source:[ https://www.icc-cricket.com/champions-trophy/media-releases/2222040 ] Cricketfan657 (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan flag
Does the Afghanistan flag need to change in all upcoming events?


 * At this point it looks like the flag has been changed for this and all past tournaments, which is both absurd and contrary to common practice on Wikipedia. It's still unclear which flag Afghanistan will compete under at this tournament, but it's extremely unlikely to be the Taliban flag. FrankieGommer talk 13:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Frankie. Please see this thread. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh and Sri Lanka seeding
ICC has confirmed that Bangladesh and Sri Lanka will be seeded B1 and A1, if they finish in the top two of their groups, to ensure they will be placed in different groups. This overrides the actual group rankings. This should be mentioned in the article

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ICC WT20 2021 Logo.png

Warm-up matches
There is no reference for the warm-up matches for the teams in Group A and B. Hence I removed those matches. If anyone want to reinsert those matches, then also provide a scorecard from a reliable source to verify. Please ping me. RIDHVAN SHARMA (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The warm match schedules for the 19 and 20 October are different in the ICC match official appointments compared to other outside sources. Keep the ICC one until Cricinfo eventually makes the scorecards. Human (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Excessive detail about hosting dates etc
Do we really need such intricately detailed "ball by ball" coverage of the postponement and other changes caused by Covid? The recent Olympic and Paralympic games articles do not contain nearly as much detailed coverage about their Covid postponement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about that? The "Calls for cancellation" sub-section on the Olympics is bigger than all of this tournament's COVID one, for example.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Logo Update
We have a new logo on ICC Website for the tournament. Should I change the logo ? Give suggestions. This logo looks good. Current logo appears to be odd.

Check out my claim here :-) https://www.icc-cricket.com/photos/2284872

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanshudhalglt (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried clicking that link and the logo they've provided seems to be really bad resolution, and it's cut off at the top and bottom. Not really acceptable unless you can find a good version. – PeeJay 11:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I am attaching a good version. I added that link just because for my claim. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/icc-mens-t20-world-cup/icc-t20-world-cup-carlos-brathwaite-to-launch-virtual-trophy-tour/articleshow/85450391.cms

This is the best one i found. I will make a high quality image of this just as this once I got approval then I will uploaded the vectorized version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanshudhalglt (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's a ICC Website link I know that official wt20 showing the current wiki logo, but check the broadcast, highlights and official Twitter page it shows the logo that I am claiming. Now that what to do? I tried to upload before but it got removed but now I want approval on talk page so that I can upload easily — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanshudhalglt (talk • contribs) 17:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Super 12 ranking
The rankings in the first table at the top of the "Super 12" section look completely wrong. According to the usual sources (ICC, Cricinfo) England is at the top and Afghanistan is definitely not above Australia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The teams are not listed in ranking order, they're listed alphabetically. "Ranking" just means the teams qualified based on their position in the T20 world rankings. I thought that was pretty obvious. – PeeJay 12:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A1 and B2
, What if Bangladesh finishes 2nd in Round 1? That means Sri Lanka (A1) and Bangladesh (B2) will go into same group in Super 12? Aditya tamhankar (talk) 21st October 2021, 18:45 (IST) Aditya tamhankar (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. No, if Bangladesh finish 2nd, they'll still become B1, per the ICC press release - "If Sri Lanka and Bangladesh qualify from the first round, they will retain the seedings of A1 and B1 respectively for the Super 12s".  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

ICC changed the rules again yesterday. See the cricinfo live feed. Human (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, do you have the link/source?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Rule change not yet confirmed officially by ICC. Yesterday, an official tweet from ICC shared a predictor site which follows the top seedings retaining rule. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - that link doesn't seem to work. Please can you check? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The link you sent does not exist. And the site isnt operated by ICC they are just promoting it. It might have mistakes. Human (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please check the link now. It's an official tweet from ICC twitter handle. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That link still doesn't work for me... Maybe we should all stop adding things for 3 hours until the matches actually finish, and the ICC releases the actual groups for the next round... Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, how are Bangladesh B1 when that group hasn't finished- so they could finish first or second? Either the rules are very confusing, or people are adding WP:SPECULATION, the latter seems like the case.... Joseph2302</b> (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Joseph2302 - per the ICC media release I've quoted above - they say as long as the qualify, they are team B1.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No the link doesnt work. Human (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , This link works. Official tweet from ICC twitter handle shared predictor site, which follows the top seeding rule. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This says While a top-two position is assured, whether they [Bangladesh] finish first or second on the table will depend on the result of the second game of the day at the Oman Cricket Academy Ground, between Scotland and Oman.. i.e. this implies that the position matters, and they're not just B1 by default. Which re-iterates my previous post: Maybe we should all stop adding things for 3 hours until the matches actually finish, and the ICC releases the actual groups for the next round... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably for the best! Although that could read as just relating to how they finish in the group, and not on which Super12 group they go into. Good ol' ICC making things clear!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The bangladeshi stations seem to take this change very real . And yes, ICC promised clarification (probably after the game has ended so that they can make the decision fitting best their narrative.--Maphry (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

, Bangladesh goes to Group 1 in Super 12. See the official website of T20 World Cup Aditya tamhankar (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The ICC match centre confirms this too (example).  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

"England have beaten West Indies for the first time in World T20"
Hi. Is this worth including or not? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How many times have they played? If it was fewer than 8 (completely arbitrary number!) then I wouldn't include, and would nevertheless need more than 1 tweet to show that it was significant. Spike &#39;em (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 5 times. Which is not enough to be noteworthy in my opinion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. If it was the first time in five finals, then I'd be swayed!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * on a similar note, the commentators kept mentioning that today was the first time that Pakistan has beaten India in a world cup game (either format). This was the 13th match between the pair (of which one previous game was settled by a bowl out). I'd be more inclined to add that fact than the WI v Eng one. Spike &#39;em (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed - I've updated the page. And tweeted Kohli...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 13 seems notable, 5 is not. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pakistan beat India in the 2017 ICC Champions Trophy Final, which granted isn't a world cup game, but still an exclusive ICC tournament. So there is still a bit of cherry picking there. --Moedk (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, every now and again on comms, they say it's the first time Pakistan have beaten India in an ICC event, before someone has to remind the other person of the Champs Trophy!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Host in the infobox
Hi. There seems to be some back-and-fourth going on over this. What do other users think should go here?


 * 1) India, Oman, UAE, with a note about the BCCI having the hosting rights
 * 2) Oman and UAE, with the same note, but not having India's flag
 * 3) India only

Is the first choice the best? Are there any other ways to handle this? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oman and UAE are actually the one hosting the tournament, so they should definitely be there. That would be my preference, as it's not being hosted in India (even if it's being run by the BCCI, who are Indian). I notice that 2020 Indian Premier League has host just listed as UAE, and this was another BCCI event not run in India. As India haven't actually hosted any matches, I would say option 2 (with the note about it being organised by the BCCI). Option 3 is just plain wrong, as the UAE and Oman are clearly hosts. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about the 2020 IPL. So I'd move to UAE/Oman in the infobox, with the footnote about the BCCI.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I Think India Is The Official Host So Here India's Flag Should Be There Tejasvi 3094 (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Support option 2. Oman and the UAE are the actual hosts where the matches are taking place. BCCI retaining hosting rights deserves a note in both the infobox and the article. The current wording in the infobox is also cluttered and confusing. Cipher21  (talk)  04:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

3 rd option because in every team World Cup jersey there is written as ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2021 India so please update with note Kaustubhkul (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The note you know that the BCCI (India) hosting the tournament but Matches are played in UAE and Oman Kaustubhkul (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to include India in the infobox. THey are not the hosts. A simple not in the article is sufficient. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Bcci has hosting rights bcci is paying for tournament to ICC So 1/3 option is right Kaustubhkul (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Morgan "most successful captain"
I was about to re-revert the statement about Morgan being the most successful captain, but have instead done some digging. The 2 links being provided have conflicting information : Cricinfo says he's won 41 matches as captain, Sky 43. Lugnuts states that the CI page needs to update, but from what I can see it is up to date; the difference is down to how they classify results. Who knows what will happen with the revolving door of Afghan captaincy, but unless Afghan regains the position soon, then Morgan should move into an unambiguous lead when England win their semi-final next week ;) Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It states that Morgan has won 41 and lost 24, but the key point is that they have him as tying 2 games. Looking into these, they are both games that finished with the score level, but England won a super-over.
 * Howstat include the super-over results as wins, so has Morgan on 43.
 * Dhoni has 41 wins and 1 tie according to CI, and the single game really was a tie (2007 WT20 group game with no tiebreak).
 * Ashgar Afghan has captained 42 wins and 1 tie, but this resulted in a super-over loss.
 * Sources are obviously counting the super over as a win, even if Cricinfo are not. I would argue we should be following news sources, not the results of running a stats query ourselves. As a win on a super over is still a win, we shouldn't be subserviently to one website disagreeing with that. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A win in a super over is no different than a football team winning a penalty shoot-out; the result of the match is a tie and the super over/shoot-out only decides who advances or who is given which medal. – PeeJay 11:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems more like extra-time to me, but comparisons aside, Cricinfo say England won the series against Pakistan 3-0, not 2-0 and the one against New Zealand 3-2 rather than a 2-2 draw. A win in a super-over is still a win. Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unlike in football, every T20 match that is a tie goes to a super over, not just knockout games. So I see it more like American sports (e.g. NFL, NHL) where a win in overtime is still counted as a win, the same as a win in normal time. And this is clearly how most sources other than Cricinfo are counting it too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * and the ICC playing conditions consider it a win : If the teams’ scores are equal after both innings have been completed (if applicable under DLS – see clause 16.4), then a Super Over shall be played. If the Super Over is a tie, then unless exceptional circumstances arise (see paragraph 26 of Appendix F) subsequent Super Overs shall be played until there is a winner. Should it not be possible to play or to complete the Super Overs needed to determine a winner, the match shall be tied. Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How about keeping the statement but including a hatnote by the reference saying "taking into account two wins in Super Overs, if only wins in regular play were considered then Ashgar Afghan would hold the record at 42". Therefore still includes the comment as reported but provides clarification for those that want to read it.Tracland (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. I took the original source from the Sky Sports report, after an on-screen graphic was posted on the live coverage yesterday (also on Sky in the UK). The ICC posted this today which states "England’s 26-run victory against Sri Lanka in Sharjah was their 43rd win under Morgan making him the most successful captain in Men’s T20Is. He went past the record of India’s MS Dhoni and Afghanistan’s recently retired Asghar Afghan (42 T20I wins each). Of Morgan’s 43 wins, two came in the super overs – against Pakistan in Sharjah in 2015 and New Zealand in Auckland in 2019."  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've also added a footnote in the table on the List of Twenty20 International records page.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't check properly, the Dhoni "tie" actually ended with a bowl off (rather than a super over) which India won. Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Bring back the bowl off! Odd that CI doesn't seem to include wins via the Super Over. I wonder if Morgan has captained the winning side in another format that was won by the the barest of margins... :D  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021
Scotland have now been eliminated. They can only finish on 4 points and either New Zealand or Afghanistan must finish on a minimum of 5. Please add an (E) after Scotland’s name. 146.200.52.194 (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Done - yes you're right, as NZ/Afg play each other later. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021
Change Pakistan to B1 in Knockout Matches as their topping the group will be confirmed when either Afghanistan beat New Zealand or they beat Scotland. 2400:ADC7:900:4600:C1E7:F07:A5D5:D76A (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The IP has answered their own question. Pakistan might finish in second place, if NZ win their match and they fail to beat Scotland.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Australia secured second position in group A and qualified to semifinals as A2 but it's given B1 spot in this article. I changed it earlier today but my changes undone by someone. Ghalib (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

India will play semi final in Dubai
If India qualify second in their group, the venues are swapped and the game will be played in Dubai and not Abu Dhabi (and the other game will be played in Abu Dhabi). Should be noted. Jopal22 (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "If India qualify" is the key bit. We'll find out in a few hours.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi final line up
Can we say that Pakistand and India will play in the semi final yet. If New Zealand beat Namibia (likely) and Scotland beat Pakistan (unlikley but possible) then the match ups would be Eng v Pak and NZ v Aus Jaxsonjo (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No, as it's WP:OR. Just wait until later today once the final group placements are known.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Trivia in results
I appreciate that the trivia is nice to have but it fails NPOV. It fails because it is selection bias as to what is and is not included. There is a need for there to be no inclusion of this information to avoid the selection bias, of the person inserting it deciding if it is notable enough or not for inclusion, which is not a neutral POV for inclusion.

I understand it may be verifiable and sourced, but it is trivia, and the information may well be nice, but its inclusion is a violation of NPOV as what is and is not included is entirely within the gift of the person including it and entirely at their own selection bias.

It should be removed in its entirety. The only information which should be included is who was and was not knocked-out/advanced. Sparkle1 (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You could surely say that about any content added to any article? Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Sparkle - you should see some of the total cruft I have trimmed out of articles. Taking hat-tricks, 5-wicket hauls, making debuts, etc are important milestones to note. Take a look at the previous tournament or the last Cricket World Cup. Or indeed, any international cricket tour page. "a violation of NPOV" is utter rubbish.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is a really poor justification for the continuation of poor practice, perhaps that trivia from previous world cups on those articles should be scrapped as well. I for one would be massively in favour of that happening. Just because something has been identified as an NPOV violation, citing other stuff existing which is also an NPOV violation is not the nullifcation of the observation that the inclusion of selected trivia in selected matches is NPOV and should be removed.

I am now asking for a justification for the inclusion of this information beyond it is verifiable and sourced and potentially notable. Why is this information being included and not other information? why is some information omitted? why do some matches have more trivia than others?

The justification of this is how it is always been done is not good enough to continue to do something Sparkle1 (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * So what isn't being included? Give me some examples. And examples of what you believe are NPOV too. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out you have not answered the straightforward question I have posed, What is the justification for the inclusion of this information beyond it is verifiable and sourced and potentially notable?


 * That list could very easily be endless, you could include everything and anything at the current rate of inclusion. The inclusion of things like debuts and fast x and fastest y is unneeded, why is slowest x and the slowest y not included why isn't the type of ball used included. The information which is not included could be endless and this is the problem with having extraneous cruft like debuts, faster x, most y and so on, where does it stop and who decides what is and is not included, this is not Wisden FFS.


 * You haven't actually posed a question, just a long statement. Maybe you're more versed in helping Katie Price and her legal issues.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment on the content. Not the contributor. Lugnuts you are not acting in a collaborative manner with your comments regarding an unrelated discussion in an attempt to diminish my contributions here.

For the avoidance of doubt here is the question again: What is the justification for the inclusion of this information? It needs to be more than just it is sourced and I like the information

Sparkle1 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is common for scorecards on sites such as Cricinfo and CricketArchive to mention landmarks for batsmen and bowlers, e.g. a player's maiden century or reaching 300 wickets in T20Is. That should be justification enough for us to do the same here. Drop the stick. – PeeJay 00:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to select standard achievements (hattricks, first century/five-wicket haul, multiples of 50 wickets, multiples of 500 runs) as they're well sourced and in multiple news coverage articles. We don't need some of the absolute trivia that was being added a few weeks ago, otherwise we'd be allowing rubbish like "highest score by an Indian left-handed batsman batting at number 6 on a Thursday". <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, some of this is pretty menial trivia and some of it really was moving into the realms of what can I dream up to add. I think there needs to be a list of what is an achievement to add. Also, I resent the accusation made by PeeJay. Comment on the content, not the motives you perceive of the contributor. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're remarkably defensive about this. That's the second time you've accused someone of commenting on the contributor rather than the content. I don't care what your motives are, I just think this is a futile discussion and that you should drop the stick. – PeeJay 01:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:POT I think applies here for you, PeeJay. Coming along and going effectively 'I want to shut down this discussion' is ridiculous, especially when others are discussing the content, and is not commenting on the content of the discussion. 'Drop the stick' is clearly ascribing motive here to the contributor as acting as intentionally disruptive, no matter your protestations. Also an accusatory comment of 'remarkably defensive' is telling. finally yes for the avoidance of doubt I am defending myself, for which there is nothing wrong with doing so, yes I am commenting on you PeeJay in case you were unclear about that, and yes I am calling it out as I see you making comments aimed at the contributor when the content is what should be being discussed.   Sparkle1 (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also can you please state how this comment by lugnuts is not designed to be an inflammatory completely unnecessary comment designed to dismiss another user comments through the use of attempted ridicule? 'Maybe you're more versed in helping Katie Price and her legal issues' Sparkle1 (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-final matches
Hi. For those who keep updating this BEFORE the Pakistan/Scotland match has even taken place, see this from the recent match comms on the NZ/Afg match - "If Pakistan win as expected, New Zealand will stay here to face England in the first semi-final. Else they go to Dubai to face Australia in the second". Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2021
India should be added as the host of the World Cup before UAE and Oman as India is the principal host of the World Cup and it is being organized by the BCCI. Even jerseys say ‘T20 World Cup, India” 178.43.94.18 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * And also see this discussion just a bit further up on this page.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Al Amerat Cricket Stadium.jpg

Proposed merge of 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup warm-up matches into 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup
The tournament warm-up matches are not notable enough for a separate article, as they weren't even proper T20 internationals, as they allowed more than 11 players on the field. As such, they do not generate the level of sustained coverage to pass WP:GNG, and so best for the content to be selectively merged into the main World Cup article- like we do for the 50 over Cricket World Cup <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. I would think they warrant only a brief mention in the tournament article. BcJvs  &#124;  talk  UTC 13:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Can I merge 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup warm-up matches into 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup? Purnendu Bhowmik Shuvro (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ICC Men's T20 World Cup which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)