Jump to content

Talk:ICC Men's Test Team Rankings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pre-empting ratings changes

[edit]

As per the ICC ratings FAQ[1] and media releases,the ratings only get updated at the end of a series.

As an example, in October 2016 the ICC said:

India is assured of the top ranking, but will officially overtake Pakistan at the top of the table only when the rankings are updated at the end of the series.[2]

Although a series may get to a stage where it is clear that one team will move in the ratings table, this does not actually happen until the series has finished. Please do not update this page, or the rankings on your favourite team's page until the table has been updated by ICC.

Every time this happens mid-series a number of (usually anonymous) editors start updating pages which are then reverted. I have removed some more impassioned pleas to stop this in the hope that a more sober explanation may sway people.--Spike 'em (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "ICC Ratings FAQ" (PDF). icc-cricket.com. ICC. Retrieved 11 October 2016.
  2. ^ "ICC to present Test mace to Virat Kohli at the end of the Indore Test". icc-cricket.com. ICC. Retrieved 11 October 2016.

rankings wrong

[edit]

i don't really know how to edit it myself, but someone needs to fix the rankings, which are out of synch. the numbers seem correct, but pakistan should be the #6 team, and NZ WI and Bang need to each move down a spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.146.11 (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa is missing !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.225.119 (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to edit the table that displays the current rankings, but they again have slipped out of date - surely it would be easier to use a similar format that has been used for the historic test rankings, enabling more people to edit the current rankings, thus keeping them up to date Dckymt (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings table needs updating again - with no obvious way to update it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.67.201 (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance an example can be used to show the calculation in the rankings. Would be useful in better understanding how the calculation is formed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.65.40 (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why do we think that countries win the cricket??

[edit]

could we have an example of applying the formula to a specific series?

[edit]

it would just make the whole system a little more understandable to see it put into action. Pugsworth 02:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Cricket Team Icon

[edit]

I recommend changing the New Zealand icon from the current NZ flag to a silver fern flag design. Something similar to this perhaps?
New Zealand
I suggest this for the following reasons:

  • A similar flag is on the wikipedia New Zealand cricket team article suggesting the NZ cricket team more commonly uses this.
  • Provides clear distinction between Australia & New Zealand in the listing.
  • Not all icons are national flags anyway (West Indies).

Any comments?

Fair use rationale for Image:Lg test 100x62.jpg

[edit]

Image:Lg test 100x62.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania

[edit]

How can Lithuania be removed from the ranking? Tomid (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Found it. Tomid (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Improvements

[edit]

Does anyone know where one could find a list of test rankings for each calendar year? T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.194.198 (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited in the text gives monthly results. However, at least for the ODI, and presumably here too, the changes in the articles, which I assume are mostly correct rather than somebody's idea of a joke, are more frquent than that. That raises some interesting questions:
  • Is there a complete record availble anywhere of who was champion when?
  • If not why not? It seems a rather odd way to run a championship not to keep full records of past champions.
Peter jackson (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The links for historic rankings are now dead / forward onto the main ICC rankings page (so it seems the ICC no longer show them). Does anyone have a link to somewhere that has a proper record? Spike 'em (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Things that I'd like to see added to the article include:

  • History, ie. When was this ranking scheme introduced.
  • Calculation, ie. How do you start calculating? Do you need to include every series result from the beginning of test cricket? Does each team start with a rating of 0? 100?
  • Meaning/Reception, ie. How seriously is this ranking taken, does the cricket community pay much attention to it? Does the leading team get anything for being number 1?
  • References, ie. Where did the calculation section come from? Is this documented by the ICC anywhere?
  • Historical Results, ie. Remove the As of December 22 bit and include, who held the championship lead at different points in time.

I will start my own research on the above and update as I find out more but if anyone can answer the above easily, please do. Rissole (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the meaning/reception question, there seems to be more focus on the head to head results, but the overall ranking does get discussed in media reports (e.g. this article[1]). There is also a trophy for the top ranked side that is transferred when the ranking changes (stories here[2] and here[3]).

Regarding the frequency, the official ICC record[4] records historical rankings on a monthly basis (apparently end of the month), but also gives a "live" ranking that includes all completed series. I would follow the ICC's practice and list the historical record for months only (Australia Jun 2003 - Jul 2009, South Africa Aug 2009 - Nov 2009, India Dec 2009 - present). Edward.r.boyce (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The colour chosen for the graph background is almost the same as the line for India on my monitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seftelcm (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the relevance of the graph. It has 5 teams only, not all 11, and it starts from 2008, a strange starting point. Either show the whole timeline from the beginning of the ranking (e.g. FIFA football rankings page) or remove it entirely. Michael Sap (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.cricinfo.com/ausvrsa2008_09/content/current/story/385572.html
  2. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/feb/24/south-africa-australia-cricket-icc
  3. ^ http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=94662
  4. ^ http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/match_zone/team_ranking.php

Bangladesh in India

[edit]

Bangladesh started their Test Cricket playing against India way back in 2000. Afterwards, Bangladesh played test cricket in many countries. India toured Bangladesh twice after. But, Bangladesh is yet to play test cricket in India, even after 10 years. Is their any particular reason ?
Anish Viswa 12:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Future Tours Programme also doesn't have Bangladesh touring India at all in the period between now and 2020, although it does have India touring Bangladesh twice (one ODI only tour, one Test and ODI tour). There appears to have been no specific explanation from this from the ICC or the BCCI. Should note it also doesn't have them touring England again, which would mean a ten-year gap since their last tour in 2010.

MRF Tyres - New Sponsor

[edit]

Has anyone seen a press release or news report about the rankings being rebranded as MRF Tyres ICC rankings (as now appears on the icc website). Confusingly player rankings are badged as MRF Tyres, but title says Reliance Player Rankings Spike 'em (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also removing the Reliance logo, am I allowed to add the MRF one as used on the ICC website (I don't own the copyright to it)? Spike 'em (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on ICC Test Championship. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can no-one do subtraction anymore?

[edit]

IP editors keep updating time spent leading the table, and either update it to some time in the future or add extra months. If you can't do basic maths then please refrain from making such edits. Spike 'em (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been another 3 such edits since the above. If you want to discuss how I am working this out, in case you think I am wrong, please let me know. If not, please stop being so disruptive. Spike 'em (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an aid, please try the following in either Excel or google sheets:

=DATEDIF("11 October 16",TODAY(),"m") for a number of complete months since India went top (will change on the 11th of each month)

or

=DATEDIF("11 October 16"-15,TODAY(),"m") if you want to round to nearest whole month.

I prefer the former, but am happy for someone to make the case for the latter.

If you can't use Excel or Google sheets, then use this weblink, though you'll need to click on the Today button and then Calculate Duration. You'll have to do your own rounding. Spike 'em (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article name / content following creation of World Test Championship

[edit]

Can we please discuss changes to the article here before wiping out content. This article is mainly about the rankings system, which is still in use, so the table is still completely valid content. It may be that we should move it to a different location, but per WP:BRD this needs discussion here please. I am not against change, but it needs to be discussed first. Spike 'em (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt whether the title "Championship" is officially valid because the official sources of ICC use the title Team Rankings only. I think the ICC Test Championship is the name of the mace, not the rankings.[1] Selva15469 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It probably is no longer valid: I'm looking back through the history & refs to see if / how we can separate out the rankings system from the end of year mace part.
It was still being called ICC Test Championship in 2016 by the ICC : the Board has doubled the prize money for sides that top the ICC Test Championship table each year at the 1 April cut-off date,[2] and this page has had the same title since it was created in 2004. I've not found a link yet to show if / when the name was officially changed. As with any page move, it is important to see what the WP:COMMONNAME is and, as an example, Cricinfo still call it the ICC Test Championship on their ratings page,[3] but their recent article on the end of year rejig just calls it the ICC men's Test rankings.[4] Spike 'em (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cricinfo is not an official source. We should follow the official sources as per the rules of Wikipedia. Selva15469 (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME can often override WP:OFFICIALNAME. We need to see what a range of sources call the ranking system, not just the ICC or indeed Cricinfo. Spike 'em (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all sources commonly used the name "rankings": Cricbuzz[5], Cricket Australia[6], Stuff[7]. The use of the title ICC Test Championship for rankings is uncommon. ICC sources on 2015[8] and 2016[9] named the rankings table as ICC Test Championship but the name usage stopped as the ICC sources from 2017[10], 2018[11], 2019[12] have clearly distinguished between Men's Test Rankings and Test Championship Mace.[13] So the current title of this page is invalid as per both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. Selva15469 (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After April 2019, the ICC Test Championship title was replaced by ICC World Test Championship as the photo of mace (awarded to the top ranked team) was attached to the ICC article about WTC on 2018.[14]

References

  1. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/1152976
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20160207162636/http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2015/media-releases/90049/outcomes-from-the-icc-board-and-committee-meetings
  3. ^ https://www.espncricinfo.com/rankings/content/page/211271.html
  4. ^ https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/india-retain-no-1-spot-in-test-rankings-west-indies-rise-to-sixth-place-1263050
  5. ^ https://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-stats/icc-rankings/men/teams
  6. ^ https://www.cricket.com.au/news/australia-england-test-rankings-update-21-22-ashes-schedule-perth-fifth-test/2021-05-13
  7. ^ https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/black-caps/123845894/the-black-caps-the-world-test-championship-and-the-icc-rankings
  8. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20160207162636/http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2015/media-releases/90049/outcomes-from-the-icc-board-and-committee-meetings
  9. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/183357
  10. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/355778
  11. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/628218
  12. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/1152976
  13. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/626132
  14. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/742337

ICC Men's Test Team Rankings

[edit]
The article itself mentions "ICC Test Championship" as "notional", so it's not an official title. Men's Test Team Rankings is the official title used in the ICC website.[1] Selva15469 (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you merge this into the discussion above? As per that, we need to bear in mind the WP:COMMONNAME as well as the WP:OFFICIALNAME. Spike 'em (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the notional refers to the championship not being a separate competition with its own set of games. Its previous official name was "ICC Test Championship" Spike 'em (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Test Championship is the name given for the test mace awarded for the top ranked team (now replaced by the World Test Championship). Source: Official tweet of ICC which clearly distinguishes between Rankings and Championship.[2]

<Previous shouty/sweary comment removed> Spike 'em (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsigned and abusive comment by User:Spike 'em, violating the policy Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Selva15469 (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about we go into all the policies you have violated? Spike 'em (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I talked with you politely and stopped the edit war to reach a conclusion from the discussion I started below. I request you to avoid personal attacks in future. Selva15469 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is complete bullshit. You both moved / edited this article (and the ODI / T20I ones) after this discussion was started, which is both edit warring and in bad faith. Spike 'em (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that doing an edit war is my mistake and now I'm personally asking sorry to you. I understood the Wikipedian concepts of consensus and good faith now. I stopped the edit war and formally started the discussion to reach consensus by the requested move. And I request you to avoid using harsh words in future as per Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. Selva15469 (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/rankings/mens/team-rankings/test
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/ICC/status/967587480630259713

Requested move 18 May 2021

[edit]
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: Closed at Moved (non-admin closure) --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ICC Test Championship → ICC Men's Test Team Rankings – ICC Test Championship was replaced by ICC World Test Championship so the former title no longer exists. The photo of the Test mace (previously awarded to the top ranked test team) was attached to the ICC tweet about WTC Finals 2021[1] and an ICC article about WTC on 2018, including an official ICC tweet which clearly distinguishes between the names Team Rankings and Championship. Now the ICC Test Championship refers to the Test mace, not the team rankings.[2] Selva15469 (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name ICC Test Championship was used for rankings table on 2001 (Sponsor: LG)[3] and 2015 (Sponsor: Reliance)[4] and 2016 (Sponsor: MRF Tyres)[5] but not used since 2017[6] and the rankings table became officially called as MRF Tyres Men's Team Rankings. The mace continued to be called as Test Championship mace and was awarded to the top ranked team until April 2019 (as WTC was inaugurated). Selva15469 (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302:, ICC Test Championship was the official name for the Test team rankings table until 2016. So it have to be the redirect for ICC Men's Test Team Rankings. I retract my comment on first line as the title 'ICC Test Championship' was not replaced but became invalid/defunct. The ICC World Test Championship was intended to replace the ICC Champions Trophy.[7] Selva15469 (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The move is appropriate nevertheless, the redirect after the move can be discussed separately. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support . I agree with the requestor and the thoughts of A.A Prinon and Rugbyfan22 who shared his/her opinion on this discussion.I would excepting to see this article on the name of ICC World Men's Test Team Rankings and Men's is needed because there is Women's article also existing.(Fade258 (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Fade258:, the term World is not required as it's only used to refer league competitions (like world cup) in the cricket. The official and common name is ICC Men's Test Team Rankings. Selva15469 (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fade258, You are misunderstanding. The articles "ICC Test Championship" and ICC World Test Championship are different. ICC Test Championship explains the ranking system, while ICC World Test Championship is just a competition between the top ranked 9 full member teams. Realizing that these two names are confusing, ICC Test Championship was renamed to ICC Test rankimgs. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 03:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A.A Prinon:, Ohh sorry I mentioned wrong things at top to Ranking and Test Championship.I will clarify your reply in few minutes.(Fade258 (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@A.A Prinon:, I support your thoughts and Sorry for my misunderstanding.(Fade258 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment I think article clearly needs to move though as mentioned in discussion above, the OFFICIALNAME is not necessarily the best place, so I'm still undecided on where best to put it. Not all of the links used in that discussion use the full ICC title, some just saying "ICC ratings" or "ICC Test ratings". A few things I am certain in my opinion of: most of the content in the article should remain, though probably best to create a new section to explain what the Test Championship was (and it WAS the name of the ratings system and not just the mace); the redirect from ICC Test Championship should remain pointing to here for the time being (and adapt the hatnote); I've yet to see an ICC article that clearly states that the mace will be used as the trophy for the final. Spike 'em (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Agree' on your opinion. ICC Test Championship was the official name of the rankings table until 2016 so there have to a separate section in that name to mention the teams who had won the test championship mace (until 2018). An article on 2018[8] and a recent official tweet from ICC[9] shows that the mace will be awarded to the champions of the ICC World Test Championship. Selva15469 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we can take a composite promotional picture as clear confirmation that it is the old mace being used as the trophy. I thought I read somewhere a while back that they were creating a new mace for the new competition, but that could be my memory playing tricks on me. Many of the online sources that have pictures of what they claim to be the WTC mace are clearly out of date as they have Reliance ribbons on it. I've also seen news reports that say that India retained the mace for the 5th successive year earlier this month, though this may just be journalistic licence to say something different to "Still top of the ratings"Spike 'em (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spike 'em:, Test championship mace (usually awarded to the top ranked team on April every year) was not awarded on 2020 and 2021 as the WTC was inaugurated on August 2019. Those news reports you said are unreliable sources. Reliance ribbons were used as they were the sponsors on that time. According to ICC article, the mace, a symbol of excellence and a recognition of a side’s outstanding performance in Test cricket.[10] So there is no need to create a new similar mace. Another tweet from ICC also confirms that the test mace will be awarded to the champions of WTC. [11] Selva15469 (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on balance. Although the sources don't consistently use any name, the old name is clearly out of date, and the proposed new name is probably the best option for the time being at least, until a consistent new COMMONNAME emerges. Mmitchell10 (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/icc/status/1393893505139945474
  2. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/742337
  3. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/174294
  4. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/180813
  5. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/183357
  6. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/355778
  7. ^ https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/test-championship-to-replace-champions-trophy-646147
  8. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/742337
  9. ^ https://twitter.com/icc/status/1393893505139945474
  10. ^ https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/626132
  11. ^ https://twitter.com/ICC/status/1367165011781648384
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.

Requested move 22 May 2021

[edit]
Unnecessary RM when RM is already open just above this one. Perhaps Anthony Appleyard mistakenly understood that I contested the RMT request, which in fact is not true. The requester Selva15469 requested at the RMT for the article to be moved, however, they mentioned in the reason that "the template be moved". The query was just to get him correct himself. Nothing contested. Closing this because WP:FORUMSHOP. Please ask me at my talk page if there's any confusion. Thanks. ─ The Aafī (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

ICC Test Championship → ICC Men's Test Team Rankings – the consensus on the discussion of ICC Test Championship is clear in support of requested move. So I request the move of this template as per WP:SNOW to prevent getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions. Selva15469 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Hatnote

[edit]

The following discussion 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.


The redirect hatnote is still valid and necessary. Please stop removing it Spike 'em (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given this has turned into an edit war, would anyone else have any views on whether the {{redirect}} hatnote is necessary? I believe this hatnote is both valid and necessary no matter what the title of the page currently is. ICC Test Championship does redirect here (as does Test Championship it seems), and it is entirely plausible that someone will end up here by searching for either term when they meant to look for ICC World Test Championship. Hence the hatnote is useful in guiding the user to that location.
It meets the first of the 3 criteria at WP:HN: Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because: They were redirected, and would seem to be a clear case of rule 4: However, if a notable topic X is commonly referred to as "Foo", but the article "Foo" is not about X, there must be a hatnote linking to the article on X or linking to a disambiguation page that contains a link to the article on X. where X = ICC World Test Championship and Foo = either Test Championship or ICC Test Championship. We could have a WP:PTOPIC discussion about either or both terms, but whilst they do redirect here, a hatnote is necessary. If either redirect is ever re-targeted to the WTC page then a hatnote would be necessary there, pointing back to this article for the same reasons. Spike 'em (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So we should probably have something like {{redirect2|ICC Test Championship|Test Championship|the Test league competition|ICC World Test Championship}} Spike 'em (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ICC Test Championship and ICC World Test Championship are two different things. Your argument is only valid if the notable topic ICC World Test Championship is commonly referred as ICC Test Championship. However, both are very different names, and do not commonly refer each other. I request you to understand. Thank you. Selva15469 (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Selva15469: Hatnotes are different from disambiguation. There is no rule that hatnotes are "only needed if the title is same as another page", as hatnotes are intended to be used on similar page names. At this point, you've gone way beyond the Three Revert Rule. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht:, another used who involved in edit war also violated the WP:3RR. I request you to understand that it's not required to add hatnote to the former names. Example: The page 'Hangouts' redirects to the Google Hangouts. The name is also part of the former name of Google Meet (formerly known as Hangouts Meet). But the page 'Google Hangouts' does not use hatnote to distinguish from the 'Hangouts Meet' (a former name). I request you to follow the same procedure in this issue. Thank you. Selva15469 (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about it being a former name, it's about it being an easily confused name. The fact that you had to spell out the distinction several times in the move request should be evidence enough of that. There was an existing hatnote before the page was moved as well clarifying the difference between the two. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hangouts also an easily confused name but not used hatnote. Selva15469 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the hatnote guidelines, propose a change at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. Don't edit war over the correct implementation of that guideline. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Personal Note

[edit]

Hi, @Spike 'em:, a long discussion with you since past week, it's personally very depressing and stressful for me. I've decided not to engage in further discussions and going to retire from Wikipedia. Thank you to everyone. Selva15469 (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

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 09:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 August 2024

[edit]
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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 15:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Men's play T20I, ODI & Test while Women's play WT20I, WODI & WTest; no need for a gender-based disambiguation. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 15:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Cricket has been notified of this discussion. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree The term "WT20I" is really just a term to make it obvious that a match in a database or fixture list is a women's match. Most reports/previews outside of databases refer to women's matches simply as T20Is/ODIs (e.g., BBC, ICC, India today). I would argue the opposite: women's and men's T20Is are all T20Is. It has even been suggested previously that it should be WT20I and MT20I (for gender equality). I therefore feel that the women's rankings should remain as "women's ODI and women's T20I" rather than changing to WODI/WT20I.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs1jac (talk • contribs)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ICC_Men%27s_Test_Team_Rankings&oldid=1244007737"