Talk:2012 ICC World Twenty20

Statistics section

In the statistics section, I suggest the following guidelines on how the tables are updated:

1. Each table contains the top five entries for the stat being recorded
2. Players with the same score/number are ordered alphabetically by surname
3. If there is more than one entry for the fifth value then all such entries are included. This is the only time when the table may exceed five rows.

In deciding what tables to include, should we use to the CricInfo statistics page as the primary source? This will make it easy to verify the accuracy of the numbers.

I also question the inclusion of the 'total number of fours' table. This is not generally a recorded statistic, and CricInfo do not have a table for it.

Mr splosh (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

As at the end of the group A-D stage, the Fifties table is incomplete as there are eleven players who have scored one fifty. This table will be made more accurate when the first player scores a second fifty (there is no need to add all eleven names to the table when many of them will be removed very soon) Mr splosh (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have commented out the strike-rate tables and the fours table, because no one was updating them, and they showed incorrect data. The tables can easily be updated and un-commented at the end of the tournament, if anyone wants to. We had so many statistics tables that it was too much work to keep them all accurate during the tournament. I waited a few days with out-of-date data before taking this action. Happy to discuss it here. Mr splosh (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://worldtwenty20.yahoo.com/abouttwenty20/icc_world_twenty20_playing_conditions_final.pdf
  • In ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-04-23 17:02:28, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-04-24 04:28:23, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2007 ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-05-26 02:50:20, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2007 ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-05-27 15:07:59, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2007 ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-06-15 14:26:37, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2009 ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-06-17 14:29:25, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2010 ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-06-18 13:58:47, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2012 ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-06-19 03:56:26, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://worldtwenty20.yahoo.com/abouttwenty20/playing-conditions.html
  • In ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-04-23 17:02:28, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-04-24 04:28:23, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2007 ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-05-26 02:49:56, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2007 ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-05-27 15:07:36, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2007 ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-06-15 14:26:35, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2009 ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-06-17 14:27:58, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2010 ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-06-18 13:59:10, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2012 ICC World Twenty20 on 2011-06-19 03:57:07, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Placing of qualifiyiers into groups.

It is so unfortunate that people edit without knowledge. Even though Afghanistan have qualified , they wont be placed in group. It will decided in the final who goes to where. Winners to one group and losers to another. Please dont edit if you dont know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.164.109 (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Split

As proposed by Blackknight12 in this edit. SocietyBox (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Let the tournament begin. Then it will get more importance and then it will be better to split it. Itz arka (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 ICC World Twenty20 has become one of the ICC's major events as well as being one of its World Cups. The tournament itself, although in its fourth year, is growing larger and larger with as many teams participating in its qualification. The tournament it self is set to be expanded in 2014 with 16 teams, therefore the importance of this tournament is clear. Allowing for these spin off articles means that there can be a small summary of the match, with the most important details in the main page, while the bulk of the details and other info can be further articulated in the spin offs. This will give the article a tidier look as well as being easier to find the information that you want to find. See 2011 Cricket World Cup for example.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

1. You are stating the notability of the tournament and not of the spinoffs.
2. You can have summaries in the main article due to the small amount of matches. The summaries are also expected to be short due to how much you can write on a 3-hour match.
3. You are basing this split on a prediction that these spinoffs will be expanded to include more than just results?

SocietyBox (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Background colouring in group tables

Before any matches have been completed, is there a reason for colouring the top two rows in the table green and bottom place red? In previous competitions we have used green to signify when a team has definitely progressed to the next round and red when the team is definitely out. Pre-colouring does not give any extra information, and will confuse things once the matches get underway. Or have I missed something?

Mr splosh (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Group 1 and 2 positions are determined by seeding, not by group A-D finishing position

Why has England been placed in group 1? It has not been decided yet. Unless a good reason is given for putting them in group 1, I will edit them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.235.153 (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes there is a good reason. The initial seedings pre-determine exactly where the team will play, regardless of whether they qualify in 1st or 2nd position. This has been mistaken by many editors, and has caused many edits and subsequent undoiung. England are seeded A1 so they will play the A1 matches even if they end in second place. India will play the A2 matches.

Likewise Australia will play B1, Sri-Lanka will play C1. However, there seems to be confusion as to whether Pakistan or New Zealand are D1. This has been switched and switched back several times. I cannot find any conclusive data on ICC or Cricinfo websites.

If in groups A-D a non-seeded team knocks out a seeded team then they would take the matches provisionaly assigned to that seeded team.

Mr splosh (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OK - I stand correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.235.153 (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

For any confusion regarding seedings link is http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-world-twenty20-2012/content/page/533245.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham312 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Dead Link 3

1st link [1] given is taking me to official website of icc world t20 2012.It does not provide the concerned information. Please check and confirm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham312 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 September 2012

The composition of Group E and Group F for the Super Eight stage is incorrect. Section 2 (Format) states " Group E will consist of the top seed from Groups A and C, and the second seed of groups B and D. Group F will consist of the top seed from Groups B and D, and the second seed of groups A and C. The seedings used are those allocated at the start of the tournament and are not affected by group stage results, with the exception of if a non-seeded team knocks out a seeded team, the non-seeded team inherits the seed of the knocked-out team.[8]"

According to this, Group E would consist of England and Sri Lanka, and not India and South Africa as in the article. The seeding used when assigning the groups is based on the pre tournament seeding. Hence, the grouping should be as follows: Group E: England, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, West Indies/Ireland Group F: India, Australia, South Africa, Pakistan/Bangladesh 2012 ICC World Twenty20 Champion India Asadanwar (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Already done Goodraise 14:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Required Bangladesh winning margin vs Pakistan

If Bangladesh bat first, don't they need to win by 38 runs to go through, rather than 37? The maths seems to support this, unless I'm missing something. 82.29.211.24 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No Bangladesh needed to win 36 or more runs. Because if Bangladesh would 36 runs then Bangladesh and Pakistan's Net Run Rate would be same but Bangladesh would qualify as the result of head to head meeting.--pratyya (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan vs. Bangladesh

This "information" is outdated and obsolete, and potentially sets a precedent where all possible outcomes must be included even when the match is long concluded. It should be deleted. I contacted the editor but he isn't interested in discussing the matter. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed it (before you have brought the discussion here). All other matches do not seem to have such information. jfd34 (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

Two references in the Format section of the article are dead since June 2012. One of these links did have archived pages in the Wayback Machine, but they are very old and cannot be used here, for example it states that if a match ends in a tie the result will be determined by a "Bowl out" (which is now deprecated in favour of the Super Over). These dead links should be replaced. jfd34 (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No references for standings and for statistics

This "[2]" and this "[3]" dont have references for users to confirm if its correct or not. I'm going ahead and giving few references for the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dileepvee (talk • contribs) 17:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have added a link within the statistics section to the CricInfo Statistics page which contains all the stats on the tournament. It also has the full tables so this can be used to extend the fifth row when row 5 is shared by two or more players. Mr splosh (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Super over

From Super Eight Group 1, New Zealand vs Sri Lanka, why is the super over described in such detail? Is it really necessary to note the outcome of every ball? I realize that it is hidden behind a toggle, but I don't think that the outcome of every ball in the super over is a helpful addition to the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Super Eight groups are called 1 and 2

The Super Eight groups are called 1 and 2, not E and F as previosuly entered here. Both Cricinfo http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-world-twenty20-2012/engine/series/531597.html?view=pointstable and ICC http://www.iccworldtwenty20.com/standings/mens-standings have named them 1 and 2 so that is what Wikipedia should use. Mr splosh (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 October 2012

Please change Pakistan NRR to "+0.273" after today's game with AUS. Source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-world-twenty20-2012/engine/series/531597.html?view=pointstable Asadsalm (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 October 2012

score between PAK & AUS today's(oct 2nd 2012) match is 117/7 not 177/7

Affifahassan (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done: jfd34 (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Australia has qualified

Australia has qualified for the semi-finals as a result of the Pakistan match, contrary to what is said in a recent edit summary. This information should be re-added to the Australia v Pakistan match information. Australia will definitely finish above both South Africa and Pakistan, and therefore in the top 2. India may well finish above Australia if they have a thumping win over South Africa, but that would still only knock Australia down to 2nd, which still means a semi-final berth. 210.9.140.229 (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Already done

Article feedback v5

Should this article be a candidate for WP:AFT5? If yes, please add the article to Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles. jfd34 (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-finals

So the first semi-final is Pakistan v Sri Lanka and the second semi-final is West Indies v Australia. Curiously enough for the women's competition one of the semi-final matches is also West Indies v Australia and this is the second time in the history of the tournaments where a men's and a women's team from the same country has progressed to at least the semi-finals (the first time was in 2010 when the Australian men's and women's teams both advanced to the final of the respective tournaments. This is the first time in the history of the tournaments where a semi-final match up is between the men's and women's teams from the same country though. 72.27.28.36 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC) hola — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.215.11 (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 October 2012

Change Champions to West Indies

RedAsh12 (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done: jfd34 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2012 ICC World Twenty20. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080911035806/http://worldtwenty20.yahoo.com/abouttwenty20/icc_world_twenty20_playing_conditions_final.pdf to http://worldtwenty20.yahoo.com/abouttwenty20/icc_world_twenty20_playing_conditions_final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120918221344/http://www.iccworldtwenty20.com:80/EventInfo/2012/broadcasters/151/broadcasters to http://www.iccworldtwenty20.com/EventInfo/2012/broadcasters/151/broadcasters

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2012 ICC World Twenty20. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080720113337/http://worldtwenty20.yahoo.com/abouttwenty20/playing-conditions.html to http://worldtwenty20.yahoo.com/abouttwenty20/playing-conditions.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 ICC World Twenty20. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031181210/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/icc-world-twenty20-2012/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?id=6856%3Btype%3Dtournament to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/icc-world-twenty20-2012/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?id=6856%3Btype%3Dtournament

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)